t 


I  . 

r 

M- 


V 


k. 


ii 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/firstfrenchrepub01cona 


THE  FIEST  FEENCH  EEPUBLIC 


A  STUDY  OF  THE  ORIGIN  AND  THE  CONTENTS  OF  THE  DECLARATION 
OF  THE  RIGHTS  OF  MAN,  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION,  AND  OF 
THE  ADOPTION  OF  THE  REPUBLICAN  FORM  OF 
GOVERNMENT  IN  1792. 


HORACE  MANN  CONAWAY, 

Sometime  Fellow  in  European  History  in  Columbia  University. 


SUBMITTED  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT  OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS 
FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 
IN  THE 

Faculty  of  Political  Science 
Columbia  University. 


IWew  13orIi. 

1002. 


PREFACE. 


\  'V 


,  \  r-  .j  '/  :: 


The  present  study  is  one  of  origins.  Our  object  is  to  trace 
from  the  beginning  the  gradual  development  of  the  Declaration 
of  the  Rights  of  Man,  of  the  first  written  constitution  in  France, 
and  to  follow  the  movement  which  led  to  the  abolition  of  monar¬ 
chy  and  to  the  adoption  of  the  republican  form  of  government. 
In  view  of  the  complex  phenomena  of  the  French  Revolutionary 
period,  it  is  advantageous  to  our  understanding  of  that  surpass¬ 
ingly  interesting  era  to  view  the  various  classes  of  facts  from 
different  standpoints.  The  Revolution  was  social,  religious,  polit¬ 
ical,  and  economic.  While  the  study  of  any  one  of  these  phases 
necessarily  involves  the  others,  the  best  results  will  be  secured 
by  considering  the  movement  now  as  social,  now  as  religious,  now 
as  political,  and  now  as  economic.  This  paper  is  an  investigation 
of  the  early  Revolution  from  the  political  point  of  view.  Whence 
arose  in  the  minds  of  the  French  the  idea  of  a  Declaration  of  the 
Rights  of  Man  ?  Where  did  they  derive  the  principles  therein 
contained  ?  How  were  they  led  to  feel  the  need  of  a  written  con¬ 
stitution  ?  Through  what  series  of  events  were  they  brought  to 
suspect,  to  denounce  and  to  renounce  royalty,  and  to  accept  the 
idea  of  an  elective  executive  ?  Such  questions  as  these  are  of  in¬ 
terest  to  the  student  of  political  history. 

Though  the  primary  sources  for  the  investigation  of  this  subject 
are  limited  in  our  American  libraries,  enough  has  been  found  to 
lead  to  an  interpretation  suggestive  and,  we  believe,  correct. 

Recently  two  important  books  upon  the  French  Revolution 
have  appeared.  M.  A.  Aulard  published  last  year  his  Histotre 
politique  de  la  Revolution  fran^aise.  In  this  work  he  has  re¬ 
examined,  in  the  light  of  the  voluminous  material  at  hand  in 
France,  these  same  questions.  Prof.  William  M.  Sloane,  of  Co¬ 
lumbia  University,  has  treated  the  Revolution  primarily  in  its 
ecclesiastical  aspects  in  his  Fre7ich  Revolution  and  Religious  Re¬ 
form.  The  manuscript  of  this  thesis  was  practically  completed 

(5) 


/I  1 


- 


6 


PREFACE 


before  either  of  these  works  came  into  the  writer’s  hands.  It  did 
not  seem  advisable,  therefore,  to  make  any  modifications  in  the 
conclusions  herein  reached  ;  they  are,  however,  in  the  main  in 
accord  with  those  arrived  at  by  these  two  authors.  The  Declara¬ 
tion  of  the  Rights  of  Man  and  the  origin  of  the  idea  of  a  written 
constitution  are  here  more  fully  discussed  than  by  these  writers. 

H.  M.  C. 

Sheffield,  Pa.,  August  5,  1902. 


THE  DECLARATION  OF  THE  RIGHTS  OF  MAN. 


The  first  question  that  naturally  suggests  itself  in  studying 
the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  is,  whence  did  the  French 
derive  the  idea  of  such  an  instrument  ?  It  has  been  asserted,  and 
an  attempt  has  been  made  to  prove,  that  both  the  notion  of 
such  a  Declaration  and  its  content  were  borrowed  from  the  early 
American  State  Constitutions.*  This  question,  however,  really 
resolves  itself  into  a  double  inquiry,  i.  e.,  whence  did  the  French 
receive  their  notion  of  the  guaranty  of  individual  rights  against 
governmental  intrusion,  and  how  far  did^he  ideas  contained  in 
the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  represent  the  political  tradi¬ 
tions  and  current  thought  of  Franc^  Only  a  study  of  the  abuses 
and  of  the  political  theories  of  pre-revolutionary  France  and  of 
the  facts  relative  to  this  document,  as  they  are  revealed  in  the 
writings  of  contemporaries  and  in  the  records  of  the  Constituent 
Assembly,  can  at  all  satisfactorily  answer  these  inquiries. 

The  sympathetic  relation  between  France  and  the  colonies 
during  and  after  the  American  Revolution,  the  interest  in  Amer¬ 
ica  of  some  of  the  more  radical  French  political  theorists,  such  as 
Mably  and  Condorcet,  and  the  community  of  ideas  existing  be¬ 
tween  the  two  countries,  shown  by  the  Jeffersonian  school  in 
America,  and  by  the  publication  of  American  writings  in  France, 
are  facts  well  known.  Hence  it  may  be  inferred  that,  when  a  few 
of  the  cahiers  asked  for  a  Declaration,  their  framers  were  ac¬ 
quainted  with  and  influenced  by  the  American  Bills  of  Rights.’ 

*  Ritchie,  Natural  Rights,  p.  i ;  M.  Charles  Borgeaud,  Atablissement  et  Revision 
des  Constitutions  en  Amlrique  et  en  Europe,  240-242;  Dr.  Geo.  Jellinek,  Die 
Erkldrung  der  Menscken-und  Biirgerrechte,  p.  10. 

2  Two  requests  for  a  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  came  from  Paris,  intra 
muros ;  one  from  the  Nobility,  Archives  parlementaires,  v,  271  ;  the  other  from  the 
Third  Estate,  Ibid.,  v,  281.  The  latter  cahier  contains  a  formulated  Declaration  of 
thirteen  articles.  The  general  cahier  of  Rennes,  Arch.  Pari.,  v,  538,  that  of  the  Third 
Estate  of  Annonay,  Arch.  Pari.,  ii,  50,  and  that  of  the  Third  Estate  of  Nemours,  Arch. 
Pari.,  iv,  161,  ask  for  the  Declaration  of  Rights. 

(7) 


8 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


But  not  until  the  States  General  had  assumed  the  r61e  of  a  Con¬ 
stitutional  Convention  were  the  proposals  of  Declarations  numer¬ 
ous.  Then  it  was  that  the  Frenchmen  gave  abundant  proof  of 
their  fondness  for  formulating  political  documents. 

On  Julj-  9,  1789,  M.  Mounier,  who  had  been  charged  by  the 
Constituent  Assembly  with  the  preparation  of  a  scheme  for  a  con¬ 
stitution,  presented  a  report  in  behalf  of  the  committee,  the  first 
article  of  which  reads;  ‘  ‘  Tout  gouvernement  doit  avoir  pour  unique 
but  le  maintien  des  droits  des  hommes;  d’ou  il  suit  que  pour  rap- 
peller  constamment  le  gouvernement  au  but  propose,  la  constitu¬ 
tion  doit  commencer  par  la  declaration  des  droits  naturels  et  im- 
prescriptibles  de  I’homme.”  *  July  ii,  Lafayette  proposed  the 
form  of  a  Declaration  of  Rights,  containing  twelve  articles,  and 
pointed  out  the  advantages  of  such  an  instrument.’'  M.  Lally 
Tollendal  approved  this  project,  but  argued  that  it  was  dangerous 
to  adopt  any  such  articles  separate  from  the  Constitution;  he  at  the 
same  time  called  the  attention  of  the  Assembly  to  the  great  differ¬ 
ence  between  a  new-born  colonial  people,  who  were  breaking  with 
a  distant  government,  and  an  old  nation  extending  over  an  im¬ 
mense  territory,  one  of  the  first  nations  of  the  world,  which  for 
eight  centuries  had  obeyed  the  same  dynasty  and  had  cherished 
the  royal  power  when  it  had  been  tempered  by  custom.  This 
nation,  he  said,  will  idolize  this  power  when  it  shall  be  regulated 
by  laws.®  M.  Lally  Tollendal  certainly  believed  that  they  were 
following  the  American  example. 

July  14,  Lafayette’s  motion  was  discussed.  Some  thought  the 
Declaration  should  be  put  at  the  head  of  the  Constitution,  in  order 
permanently  to  secure  the  rights  of  man  before  establishing  those 
of  society;  others  thought  it  should  be  placed  after  the  Con¬ 
stitution.  It  was  decided  at  this  session  that  the  Constitution 
should  contain  a  Declaration,  but  its  position  was  left  for  later 
decision. ‘  Sieyes  read  his  exposition  of  the  Rights  of  Man,  on 
July  10,  to  the  Constitutional  Committee,  and  on  July  21,  to  the 
Assembly.^  On  July  17,  M.  Target  presented  a  scheme  of  thirty- 
one  articles  for  a  Declaration,  and  M.  Mounier  one  of  sixteen 


'  Arch.  Pari.,  viii,  Zl6. 
’  Ibid.,  221  et  seq. 

Ibid.,  230-231. 


*  Ibid.,  221-222. 
5  Ibid. 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  MAN 


9 


articles.'  On  July  31,  M.  D.  Servan,  advocate  to  the  Parlement 
of  Grenoble,  presented  a  project  of  thirteen  articles.  August  i, 
a  long  debate  occurred  upon  the  position  to  be  given  to  the  Decla¬ 
ration  in  the  Constitution.  M.  Thouret  also  offered  a  scheme  for 
a  Declaration.  The  debate  continued.  On  August  4,  M.  Camus 
proposed  that  the  Assembly  make  a  declaration  of  the  rights  and 
duties  of  man  and  of  a  citizen;  but  this  motion  was  defeated  by  a 
vote  of  570  to  433.’  However,  at  the  same  session,  it  was  decided 
almost  unanimously  that  the  Constitution  should  be  preceded  by 
the  Declaration.  On  August  12,  Abbe  Sieyes  offered  a  project  of 
a  Declaration  of  forty-two  articles.^ 

During  discussion  in  the  Assembly,  August  i,  M.  Champion  de 
Cice,  Bishop  of  Auxerre,  opposed  a  declaration  as  useless  at  that 
time,  and  said  that  the  example  of  North  America  was  not  con¬ 
clusive,  as  that  country  only  contains  proprietors,  cultivators,  and 
citizens  all  on  the  same  social  footing.  M.  De  la  Luzerne,  Bishop 
of  Langres,  also  asserted  that  the  Con.stitution  of  an  empire  did 
not  need  a  Declaration.  M.  Malouet,  in  making  strong  protest 
against  their  placing  the  Declaration  at  the  head  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion,  portrayed  the  contrast  between  the  situation  of  France  and 
that  of  America.’  M.  Delandine  spoke  in  agreement  with  M. 
Malouet. 

On  August  12,  two  projects  for  a  Declaration  of  Rights  were 
offered  to  the  Assembly ;  one  of  seventy-one  articles,  by  Gonges- 
Carton  of  Quercy,  and  one  of  twenty-four  articles,  by  the  Sixth 

^  Arch.  Pari., 

’  Ibid.,  422. 

’  “  Convertions  nous  en  acte  I^gislatif  cet  expose  m^taphysique,  ou  pr6senterons 
nous  les  principes  avec  leur  modification  dans  la  constitution  que  nous  allons  faire  ? 
Je  sais  que  les  Amdricains  n’ont  pas  pris  cette  precaution  ;  ils  ont  pris  I’liomme  dans  le 
sein  de  la  nature,  et  le  pr^sentent  a  I’univers  dans  sa  souverainetd  primitive,  mais 
la  socidtd  Amdricaine  nouvellement  formde,  est  compossee,  en  totalitd  de  propridtaires 
ddji  accoutumds  ^  I'dgalite,  dtrangers  au  luxe  ainsi  qu’il  I’indulgence,  connaissant  ^ 
peine  le  joug  des  impots,  des  prdjuges  qui  nous  dominent,  n’ayant  trouvd  sur  la  terre 
qu’ils  cultivent  aucune  trace  de  fdodalitd.  De  tels  hommes  dtaient  sans  doute  prd- 
pards  i  recevoir  la  libertd  dans  toute  son  energie  ;  car  leurs  goflts,  leurs  moeurs,  Uuri 
position  les  appelaient  it  la  ddmocratie.  Mais,  nous,  Messieurs,  nous  avons  pour  con- 
citoyens  une  multitude  immense  d’  hommes  sans  propridtds,  qui  attendent,  avant  toute 
chose,  leur  subsistence  d’un  travail  assurd,  d’une  police  exacte,  d’une  protection  con. 
tinue,  qui  s’irritent  quelquefois,  non  sans  de  justes  motifs,  du  spectacle  du  luxe  et  de 
I’opulence,”  etc.  Arch.  Pari.,  viii,  322. 


10 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


Bureau  of  the  Assembly.  On  August  13,  a  committee  of  five, 
consisting  of  Desmeuniers,  Bishop  of  Langres,  M.  Tronchet, 
Count  Mirabeau  and  M.  Rhedon,  was  chosen  to  receive  the  drafts 
of  a  Constitution  and  to  recast  these  into  one  form.*  August  14, 
Mirabeau,  on  behalf  of  the  committee,  reported  a  scheme  of  a 
Declaration  containing  nineteen  articles.  In  speaking  of  the  aim 
of  the  committee,  he  said,  that  from  the  score  of  plans  offered 
them,  they  had  sought,  like  the  Americans,  to  construct  a  Decla¬ 
ration  not  of  abstract  and  scientific  principles,  but  one  of  political 
truths  that  would  readily  be  comprehended  by  the  popular  mind.’ 
In  the  debate  of  August  18  upon  the  Declaration,  M.  Rabaud 
de  Saint  Etienne  said  that  the  Declaration  of  Rights  had  been 
adopted  because  the  cahiers  had  asked  it,  and  that  the  cahiers  had 
asked  it  because  the  Americans  had  set  the  example,  but  that  this 
was  no  reason  why  the  Declarations  should  be  similar,  for  the 
circumstances  of  the  two  nations  were  different.’ 

August  19,  the  Assembly  decided  to  discuss  first  the  Declara¬ 
tion  of  the  Sixth  Bureau.*  On  August  21,  after  some  debate,  the 
Assembly  adopted  the  preamble  of  the  plan,  somewhat  modified, 
presented  by  the  committee  of  five.  M.  Mounier  then  proposed 
three  articles,  which  were  adopted.  August  21,  on  the  proposal 
of  M.  Alexander  de  Eameth,  articles  four,  five,  and  six,  after  dis¬ 
cussion,  were  adopted. 

August  21,  M.  de  Boislander  proposed  a  plan  of  seventy -four 
articles.  August  22,  after  divers  proposals  had  been  made  and 


*  Arch.  Pari.,  viii,  434. 

’  “  Nous  avons  cherch6  cette  forme  populaire  qui  rapelle  au  peuple,  non  ce  qu’on  a 
6tudi6  dans  les  livres  ou  dans  les  meditations  abstraites,  mais  ce  qu’il  a  lui  meme 
6prouve.  .  .  .  C’est  ainsi  que  les  Ameticains  ont  fait  leur  declaration  de  droits; 

ils  en  ont  ^  dessein  ecarte  la  science  ;  ils  ont  presente  les  veritSs  politique  qu’ils 
s’agissait  de  fixer  sous  une  forme  qui  pQt  devenir  facilement  celle  du  peuple,  a  quj 
seul  la  liberie  importe,  et  qui  seul  peut  la  maintenir.”  Arch.  Pari.,  viii,  438-440. 

^  Arch.  Pari.,  viii,  452  et  seq. 

*  A  comparison  of  the  Declaration  offered  by  the  Sixth  Bureau  with  the  Bill  of 
Rights  of  the  Revolutionary  Constitutions  of  Massachusetts  and  of  Virginia,  shows 
that  the  Bill  of  Rights  of  the  Virginia  Constitution  contained  sixteen  articles,  that  of 
the  Massachusetts  thirty,  and  that  of  the  Sixth  Bureau,  twenty-four.  The  same  gen¬ 
eral  ideas  are  found  in  all  three,  but  they  are  couched  in  different  words,  that  of  the 
Sixth  Bureau  being  the  least  extreme. 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  MAN 


1 1 

discussed,  articles  seven,  eight,  and  nine  were  adopted.'  August 
23,  after  many  proposals  and  lengthy  debate,  article  ten  was 
agreed  upon.  August  24,  a  liberal  discussion  of  the  phraseology 
resulted  in  the  adoption  of  articles  eleven,  twelve,  and  thirteen.’ 
August  26,  after  some  discussion,  articles  fourteen  and  fifteen 
were  accepted;  later  in  the  same  day,  articles  sixteen  and  seven¬ 
teen  were  agreed  upon.’  Then  the  Assembly  resolved  that  the 
consideration  of  further  articles  should  be  postponed  until  the 
Constitution  should  be  completed.*  October  2,  the  articles  pre¬ 
viously  adopted  were  presented  to  the  Assembly,  with  article  four 
changed  from  “  La  liberte  consiste  a  faire  tout  ce  qui  ne  nuit  pas  a 
autrui,”  to  “La  liberte  consiste  a  pouvoir  faire  tout”  etc.  The 
change  was  accepted.  The  whole  Constitution  was  presented  to 
the  king  September  13,  1791,  and  accepted  by  him.  In  the  As¬ 
sembly,  September  14,  the  king  swore  to  obey  the  constitution.’ 

These  are  the  facts  of  historical  data  relating  to  the  formation 
of  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man  purposely  set  forth  in 
detail  and  in  chronological  order.  What  conclusions  may  we 
draw  from  them  ?  The  frequent  reference  to  the  American  Bill 
of  Rights,  the  number  of  Declarations  proposed  in  cahiers  and 
before  the  Assembly,  differing  in  form  and  in  length,  but  agreeing 
in  fundamental  principles,  the  discussions,  the  selections  and  the 
modifications  to  which  this  raw  material  was  subjected  in  the 
process  of  constructing  the  Declaration  finally  adopted,  warrant 
these  two  inferences;  (i)  the  notion  of  a  Declaration  of  Rights, 
separate  from  the  Constitution  proper,  was  suggested  to  the 
French  by  the  American  State  Constitutions  ;  (2)  the  contents  of 
the  articles  and  the  language  in  which  they  were  couched  were 
original. 

A  study  of  the  separate  articles  of  the  Declaration  in  the  light 
of  contemporary  conditions  gives  additional  reason  for  thinking 
that  the  ideas  therein  contained  were  not  foreign  to  France.  For 
convenience  of  consideration  in  the  present  study,  the  articles  of 
the  Declaration  may  be  divided  into  two  classes ;  the  first  class 
consists  of  those  articles  that  were  in  the  main  reactive  against 
certain  abuses  under  which  the  French  suffered;  the  second  class 

*  Arch.  Pari.,  viii,  470  et  seq. 

’  Ibid.,  483-484.  ’  Ibia.,  487,  489.  ‘  Ibid.,  492, 

Histoire  ParUmcntaire,  395-402. 


12 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


comprises  those  articles  which  contained  principles  more  especi- 
all}'  theoretical.  Less  proof,  perhaps,  is  necessary  for  deciding 
upon  the  originality  of  the  former  class  than  upon  that  of  the 
’  ■ '  We  shall  treat  these  classes  in  the  order  named. 


Art.  7.  No  person  shall  be  accused,  arrested  or  imprisoned 


except  in  the  cases  and  according  to  the  forms  prescribed  b}^  law. 
An)"  one  soliciting,  transmitting,  executing,  or  causing  to  be  exe¬ 
cuted  any  arbitrary  order  shall  be  punished.  But  any  citizen 
summoned  or  arrested  in  virtue  of  the  law  shall  submit  without 
delay,  as  resistance  constitutes  an  offense. 

Art.  8.  The  law  shall  provide  for  such  punishments  only  as  are 
strictly  and  obviously  necessar)",  and  no  one  shall  suffer  punish¬ 
ment  except  it  be  legally  inflicted  in  virtue  of  a  law,  passed  and 
promulgated  before  the  commission  of  the  offence. 

Art.  9.  As  all  persons  are  held  innocent  until  they  shall  have 
been  declared  guilty,  if  arrest  shall  be  deemed  indispensable,  all 
severity  not  essential  to  the  securing  of  the  prisoner’s  person  shall 
be  severely  repressed  by  law.” 

That  these  three  articles  were  aimed  at  no  imaginary  or  very 
distant  wrongs  is  evident  from  a  cursory  survey  of  the  adminis¬ 
tration  of  the  laws  of  France,  and  from  the  protests  of  French 
authors.  Lettres  de  cachet,  arbitrary  imprisonments,  retroactive 
laws,  and  cruelly  exaggerated  penalties  were  not  uncommon. 
Mirabeau  and  Voltaire  had  both  .suffered  under  arbitrary  laws  and 
had  painted  the  injustice  of  such  laws  in  lurid  colors.  Mirabeau’s 
Lettres  de  cachet  and  his  Essai  stir  le  despotisme  bristle  with  pro¬ 
tests  against  the  abuses  of  the  old  regime.  The  following  grue- 
.some  picture  is  a  suggestive  statement  of  the  way  in  which  justice 
was  administered  in  France  in  the  eighteenth  century: 

”  The  disproportion  of  crimes  and  of  penalties  was  flagrant.  A 
house  thief  was  hung  in  1733;  an  ecclesiastic,  guilty  of  having 
found  fault  with  the  expulsion  of  the  Jesuits,  was  also  hung  in 
1762.  The  procedure  was  unjust  and  inhuman.  The  accused, 
assumed  to  be  guilty  in  advance,  ignorant  of  the  crime  with  which 
he  was  charged,  without  counsellor  or  advocate,  interrogated  d 
huis  clos,  submitted  to  the  preparatory  question,  was  judged 
secretly.  Once  condemned,  he  was  tortured  before  undergoing 
his  punishment.  And  what  punishment  !  For  imprisonment, 
transportation  or  hanging  was  in  vogue.  The  burning  at  the 
stake  had  fallen  into  desuetude,  but  the  lash,  branding  with  red- 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  MAN 


13 

hot  iron,  the  galleys,  quartering,  the  rack,  still  did  their  savage 
work.”  ‘ 

Protests  against  these  enormities  were  raised  by  the  philoso¬ 
phers,  and  later  by  enlightened  magistrates,  such  as  Montesquieu, 
Servan,  Linguet,  and  Malesherbes.  In  1780,  the  “preparatory 
question”  was  abolished.^ 

Mirabeau,  in  denouncing  retroactive  laws,  says:  “  Nulle  puis¬ 
sance  humaine,  ni  surhumaine  ne  pent  justifier  I’effet  retroactif 
d’aucune  loi.”  ’ 

“Art.  10.  No  one  shall  be  disquieted  on  account  of  his  opinions, 
including  his  religious  views,  provided  their  manifestation  does 
not  disturb  the  public  order  established  by  law.” 

Since  the  sixteenth  century,  France  had  been  wrestling  with  the 
problem  of  how  to  adjust  two  hostile  faiths  to  each  other.  Far¬ 
ther  to  complicate  the  matter,  a  schism  occurred  in  the  seven¬ 
teenth  century  within  the  Catholic  Church,  which  aroused  be¬ 
tween  Jesuits  and  the  Jansenists  a  feeling  of  intolerance,  well- 
nigh  as  violent  and  determined  as  that  which  already  existed 
between  the  Catholics  and  the  Huguenots.  Even  in  the  eigh¬ 
teenth  century  intolerance,  held  in  partial  abeyance,  frequently 
broke  out  in  overt  acts,  which  displayed  the  vindictiveness  of 
the  hostile  parties.  The  philosophers,  more  interested  in  human¬ 
ity  than  in  the  prejudices  of  any  faction,  championed  in  the  name 
of  tolerance  the  party  persecuted.  The  new  spirit  gained  sup¬ 
port.  The  writings  of  the  latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  century 
abound  with  denunciations  of  intolerance  and  with  pleas  for 
tolerance.*  By  and  by  the  movement  was  fruitful,  and  on  January" 

*  Lavisse  et  Rambaud ;  Histoire  Generale,  vii,  360. 

’  Ibid.,  vii,  360. 

’  Diet.  Universelle,  under  Retroactif. 

‘Three  friends  of  tolerance  were  Voltaire,  D’Argenson  and  Turgot.  Voltaire  in 
his  Discourse  Historique  et  Critique  placed  as  an  introduction  to  the  tragedy  Les 
Guebres  {Oeuvres,  by  M.  Beuchet,  ix,  26,  Paris,  1831),  and  in  his  Traiti  sur  la  tol 
Irance,  written  upon  the  death  of  Jean  Galas,  1763  {Oeuvres,  ix,  141  and  243  et  seq.'), 
pleads  for  tolerance.  For  d’Argenson’s  views  on  tolerance  in  1744,  see  Roequain, 
L' esprit  rtvolutionaire,  116  and  138,  and  d’Argenson,  Memoires,  v,  328  et  seq. 
Turgot  in  a  letter  to  an  ecclesiastic,  his  schoolmate  at  the  Sorbonne,  expressed  him¬ 
self  in  1753  in  favor  of  tolerance;  another  letter  of  the  year  following  was  of  like 
import.  His  Conciliateur  was  printed  about  the  same  time.  Oeuvres,  ii,  353  et  seq., 
Paris,  1808.  June,  1755,  he  presented  a  Memoir  to  the  king  on  “Toleration,  or  Re¬ 
ligious  Equality.”  Life  and  Writings  of  Turgot,  by  W.  Walker  Stephens,  256  et  seq. 


H 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


ig,  1788,  the  Parlemenf  oi  Paris  registered  a  decree  giving  civil 
rights  to  Protestants.' 

“  Art.  II.  The  free  communication  of  ideas  and  opinions  is  one 
of  the  most  precious  of  the  rights  of  man.  Every  citizen  may, 
accordingly,  speak,  write,  and  print  with  freedom,  but  shall  be 
responsible  for  the  abuse  of  this  freedom  as  shall  be  defined  by 
law.  ’  ’ 

Here  too  is  an  attempt  to  secure  permanently  that  for  which  a 
long  struggle  had  taken  place.  Two  powers,  the  Church  and 
Royalt5'^,  had  labored,  now  singly  and  uow  together,  to  regulate 
the  expression  01  ideas.  The  writing  and  the  writer  had  been 
equally  the  object  of  royal  inclemency — the  one  being  consigned 
to  the  flames,  the  other  to  prison.  But  in  spite  of  royal  decrees, 
public  sentiment  gravitated  towards  liberty  of  expression.  In 
1776,  Malesherbes  secured  the  opening  of  the  prisons  of  Vincennes 
and  the  Bastille  for  the  release  of  prisoners  held  under  Lettres  de 
cachet^  Again,  in  1784,  in  response  to  Mirabeau’s  "'Lettres  de 
cachet'’’  the  dungeons  of  Vincennes  were  opened.® 

“  Art.  12.  The  security  of  the  rights  of  man  and  of  the  citizen 
requires  a  public  force.  This  force  is,  therefore,  established  for 
the  good  of  all  and  not  for  the  personal  advantage  of  those  to 
whom  it  shall  be  entrusted.” 

This  twelfth  article  was  at  the  same  time  the  expression  of  a 
political  theory  and  reactionary  against  past  practices.  It  was 
the  theory  of  the  framers  of  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man 
that  the  nation  was  supreme,  the  monarch  only  an  hereditary 
administrative  agent.  To  maintain  this  status,  the  power  of  mili¬ 
tary  force  must  be  employed  only  for  the  advantage  of  the  nation. 
d’Argenson,  in  1754,  had  complained  that  ‘‘Le  roi  n’  emploie 
plus  ses  forces  que  contre  ses  sujets.”  *  In  1771,  when  the  obstin¬ 
ate  parlement  had  been  replaced  by  the  Grayid  Conseil,  troops  were 
used  to  guard  this  substitute  which  was  designated  ”  Maupeou’s 
parlement,”  and  the  people  considered  the  whole  procedure  as 
contrary  to  the  French  Constitution.®  Mirabeau  had  also  de- 

'  Rocquain,  U esprit  rev.,  p.  463.  ^  Ibid.,  336. 

®  Rocquain,  L' esprit,  riv.,  412,  For  a  list  of  the  books  condemned,  see  Rocquain, 
Ibid.,  489-535. 

*  Quoted  in  Rocquain,  L' esprit  riv.,  178,  and  in  Mimoires,  viii,  248. 

*  Rocquain,  H esprit  riv.,  286. 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  MAN 


nounced  the  royal  army  in  these  plain  words:  “Je  dis  que  les 
troupes  reglees  sont  1’ instrument  du  despotisme,  comme  leur  insti¬ 
tution  en  fut  le  signal.  L’exemple  de  nos  voisins  n’est  pas  une 
preuve  concradictoire;  et  ne  voit  on  pas  en  efFet  que  toute  consti¬ 
tution  en  Europe  est  degeneree  en  arbitraire  et  s’accelere  vers  le 
despotisme;  Les  troupes  reglees  ont  ete  et  seront  toujours  le  fleau 
de  la  liberte;  mais  ce  fleau  est  intolerable  quand  il  devient  le 
rempart  des  depredations.”  ‘ 

The  people  in  several  of  the  cahiers  manifested  fear  lest  the 
monarch  might  endanger,  by  the  use  of  an  army,  the  national 
rights,  and  consequently  asked  for  the  dismissal  of  foreign  troops, 
for  a  new  constitution  for  the  army,  and  for  the  destruction  of  in¬ 
ternal  forts. ^ 

‘‘Art.  13.  A  common  contribution  is  essential  for  the  mainten¬ 
ance  of  the  public  forces  and  for  the  cost  of  administration.  This 
should  be  equitably  distributed  among  all  the  citizens  in  propor¬ 
tion  to  their  means.” 

The  inequality  of  taxes  was,  in  France,  an  abuse  recognized 
and  condemned  for  centuries.  Bodin,  in  his  Republique,  written 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  criticised  the  exemption  of  the  clergy 
and  of  the  nobility.’  Already  under  Louis  XIII.,  throughout  two- 
thirds  of  France,  where  the  taille  was  a  personal  tax,  2,000,000  of 
richer  persons  were  exempt  from  the  taille,  while  8,000,000  were 
taxable.  D’Avenel  says  that  the  workmen  paid  under  Louis 
XIII.  four  and  a  half  times  as  much  as  to-day,  though  they  earned 
much  less.*  The  grievous  exemptions  continued  so  that  the 
Third  Estate  during  the  eighteenth  century  supported  the  chief 
burden  of  royal  taxes  and  was  subjected  to  onerous  feudal  dues 
besides.® 

*  Essai  sur  le  despotisme.  Oeuvres,  viii,  ill  et  seq.,  Paris,  1835. 

’The  cahier  of  the  Nobility  of  Sisteron  asked:  “  Qu’il  sera  fait  des  reglements,  et 
pris  des  precautions  pour  que  les  troupes  necessaires  au  maintient  de  la  tranquilite 
ginerale  ne  puissent  jamais  servir  opprimer  le  citoyen  et  i  enchainer  la  liberte 
publique.”  Arch.  Pari.,  iii,  364.  The  cahier  of  the  Nobility  and  the  Third  Estate 
of  Peronne  asked  :  “  Que  ...  les  officiers  et  les  soldats,  en  prgtant  le  serment 
de  fidelite  au  Roi,  le  prStent  aussi  k  la  nation  et  jurent  d  n’executer  aucun  ordre  qui 
soit  contraire  aux  lois  constitutionelles.”  Arch.  Pari.,  v,  356. 

’  Jean  Bodin,  De  Republica.  Libre  vi,  chap.  ii. 

‘  Hist.  Gin.,  v,  362. 

*  Rtat  de  la  France  en  lySg,  Paul  Boiteau,  ch.  xiv,  Paris,  1861. 


i6 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


The  Physocrats  advocated  as  a  remedy  for  this  injustice  a  S5'S- 
tem  which  should  make  the  taxes  proportionate  to  each  one’s 
productive  riches.  Turgot,  taking  the  first  step  towards  the 
realization  of  this  idea,  said,  in  defense  of  his  proposal  for  the 
abolition  of  corvees,  February,  1776:  “The  expenses  of  govern¬ 
ment  having  for  their  object  the  interest  of  all,  all  should  contrib¬ 
ute  to  them;  and  the  more  one  enjoys  the  advantages  of  society, 
the  more  one  should  regard  himself  honored  in  sharing  the  ex¬ 
penses.’’  '  But  his  efforts  were  vain;  for  the  privileged  classes 
esteemed  their  exemptions  too  highly  to  submit  tamely  to  a  bur¬ 
densome  reform;  hence  they  stubbornly  persisted  in  their  resist¬ 
ance  to  innovations  in  the  customary  methods  of  collecting  taxes. 
Nevertheless  there  was  a  growing  sentiment  in  favor  of  reform;’ 
so  that  when  the  cahiers  of  1789  were  prepared,  the  majority  of 
those  of  the  higher  orders  acceded  to  an  equal  partition  in  the 
burdens  of  the  fisc.’ 

“  Art.  14.  All  the  citizens  have  a  right  to  decide,  either  person¬ 
ally  or  by  their  representatives,  upon  the  necessity  of  the  public 
contribution;  to  grant  this  freely;  to  know  to  what  uses  it  is  put, 
and  to  fix  the  proportion,  the  mode  of  assessment  and  of  collec¬ 
tion,  and  the  duration  of  the  taxes.’’ 

The  French  monarch,  as  in  other  European  countries,  from  the 
time  that  the  royal  domains  were  found  insufficient  to  meet  the 
governmental  expenses,  was  engaged  in  a  continual  struggle  with 
the  nation  over  the  right  to  grant  subsidies.  The  nation  asserted 
only  sporadically  and  incoherently  its  right  to  vote  these  supplies. 
For  the  French  did  not  manifest  that  persistent  and  determined 
resistance  to  appropriations,  unrequited  by  redress  of  political 
grievances,  which  their  English  neighbors  exhibited  so  often 
and  in  such  a  marked  degree.  Nevertheless,  during  a  minority 
or  under  a  weak  monarch,  when  able  popular  leaders  flourished, 
the  cause  of  the  people  was  more  stubbornly  maintained.  The 
States  General  claimed  this  guardianship  in  earlier  days;  but  in 
the  two  centuries  previous  to  the  Revolution  it  was  the  Parlement 
of  Paris  that  contended  with  increasing  vigor  and  obstinacy 
against  the  arbitrary  exactions  of  the  king.  As  a  final  re.sort,  it 

*  Alfred  Neymarck,  Turgot  et  ses  Doctrines,  i,  257  et  seq.,  2  vols.,  Paris,  1885. 

*  Hist.  GSn.,  vii,  chap.  xii. 

3  For  instances  of  the  abuses  at  which  Art.  13  aimed,  see  De  Tocqueville,  D Ancien 
rigime,  trans.  by  Plenry  Buor,  notes  32-38,  pp.  271-273. 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  MAN 


n 

asserted,  July  30,  1787,  that  “  le  principe  constitutionnel  de  la 
tnonarchie  fran9aise  etait  que  les  imp6ts  fussent  consentis  par  ceux 
qui  devraient  les  supporter.”  ‘  The  continued  and  inextricable- 
confusion  of  finances  -was  the  immediate  cause  of  the  calling  of  the: 
Notables,  and  later  of  the  States  General.  So  far  had  the  public 
sentiment  reacted  against  the  actual  fiscal  mismanagement,  that 
the  cashier  were  well-nigh  unanimous  in  seeking  for  the  nation 
the  right  to  grant  subsidies.’ 

‘‘Art.  15.  Society  has  a  right  to  require  of  every  public  agent 
an  account  of  his  administration.” 

Article  15  was  both  theoretical  and  reactionary  against  actual 
abuses.  If  the  nation  was  to  be  supreme  over  all  of  its  agents,  it 
could  only  hope  effectually  to  maintain  that  superiority  by  hold¬ 
ing  all  its  functionaries  strictly  accountable.  Practical  experience 
under  the  monarchy  in  the  collection  and  the  expenditure  of 
finances  had  impressed  an  effective  lesson  upon  the  French  people 
of  the  abuses  incident  to  irresponsible  officers.  The  Cour  des 
Aides,  in  its  noteworthy  remonstrance  of  1775,  reviewed  the  status 
of  the  financial  administration.  The  injustice  of  the  feme,  the 
arbitrariness  of  the  beaureacracy,  the  complexity  of  the  system, 
the  failure  of  popular  petitions  to  reach  the  throne,  and  the  need 
of  thorough  reform,  were  clearly  set  forth.’  Then,  too,  Necker, 
by  the  publication  of  his  Compte  rendu  (1781)  and  L' Administra¬ 
tion  des  fi7ia7ices  (1785),  had  afforded  the  nation  a  glimpse  of  pub¬ 
lic  finances  imperfect,  yet  in  the  highest  degree  stimulating  to  its 
curiosity.*  As  an  illustration  of  the  status  of  public  opinion,  the 

'  Rocquain,  L' esprit  rev.,  448. 

’  For  the  part  taken  by  the  States  General  in  granting  subsidies,  see  Henri  Hervieu, 
Recherches  sur  les  premiers  iltats  ghieraux,  Paris,  1879;  G.  Picot,  Hist,  des  Ptats 
Glniraux  Paris,  1885,  5  vols.;  Ch.  V.  Langlois,  Ptats  genlraux  in  La  Grande  En. 
cyclopidie ;  for  that  of  the  parlenients,  see  Rocquain,  L'esprit  riv.,  and  Ch.  Gomel, 
Les  Causes  financilres  de  la  revolution  francaise. 

’  Protest  of  the  Cour  des  Aides  of  Paris,  April  10,  1775,  in  Translations  and  Re¬ 
prints  from  the  Original  Sources  of  European  History,  edited  by  James  Harvey 
Robinson,  Ph.  D.,  with  an  English  version  by  Grace  Read  Robinson. 

*  Gomel  in  Les  Causes financilres  de  la  rlvolution  francaise,  p.  1 13,  gives  the  fol. 
lowing  quotation  from  a  contemporary  writer:  “  Le  livre  de  Necker  sur  L' adminis¬ 
tration  des  finances  produisit  autant  d’effet  que  si  I’auteur  avail  encore  dirige  celles 
du  royaume.  .  .  .  Des  magistrals,  des  juriconsultes,  des  militaires,  des  pr^lats 
I’etudieraient,  non  pour  devenir  administrateurs,  mais  pour  se  rendre  des  censeurs  rc- 
doubtables  de  I’administration. 


i8 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  RUPUBLIC 


Notables  in  1787  demanded  that  some  report  of  receipts  and  ex¬ 
penses  should  be  published  annually,  and  that  capable  men,  for¬ 
eign  to  the  administration,  should  be  called  to  the  conseil  des 
Ji^iances  for  reviewing  the  work.'  Here,  too,  the  cahiers  were 
practically  a  unit  in  their  demands. 

“  Art.  17.  Since  property  is  an  inviolable  and  sacred  right,  no 
one  shall  be  deprived  thereof  except  where  public  necessity, 
legally  determined,  shall  clearly  demand  it,  and  then  only  on 
condition  that  the  owner  shall  have  been  previously  and  equitably 
indemnified.” 

Private  property  under  the  ancien  regime  was  not  sacred.  De 
Tocqueville  cites  the  following,  which  may  serve  us  for  illustra¬ 
tion  of  the  condition:  ‘‘A  royal  declaration  was  made,  suspending 
in  time  of  war  repayment  of  all  loans  contracted  by  towns,  vil¬ 
lages,  colleges,  communities,  hospitals,  charitable  houses,  trade 
corporations  and  others,  repayable  out  of  town  dues  by  us  con¬ 
ceded,  though  the  instrument  securing  the  said  loans  stipulates 
for  the  payment  of  interest  in  the  case  of  non-payment  at  the  stip¬ 
ulated  time.  Thus  not  only  is  the  obligation  of  repayment  at  the 
stipulated  terms  suspended,  but  the  security  itself  is  impaired.”  ’ 
This  article,  seventeenth,  was  also  reactive  against  the  grievous 
and  burdensome  corvees,  military  convoys,  and  forced  transporta¬ 
tion  of  convicts." 

The  remaining  seven  articles  are  more  theoretical,  covering  the 
doctrines  of  liberty,  equality,  natural  and  inalienable  rights, 
national  sovereignty,  the  social  contract  and  the  separation  of 
powers.  The  views  expres.sed  were,  in  the  main,  accepted  at 
least  in  theory  in  the  American  States.  France  was  not,  however, 
indebted  to  the  colonies  for  them;  although  their  germinal  ideas 
had  been  introduced  from  the  teachings  of  foreign  writers,  notably 
from  the  English,  they  had  grown  up  in  France  largely  as  a  home 
product. 

The  doctrine  of  national  or  popular  sovereignty  was  no  new 
conception  for  the  French  nation.  It  had  been  appealed  to  by  the 
Church  to  check  the  secular  power,  and  by  the  Empire  to  check 

'  Rocquain,  L' esprit  riv.,  444. 

H Ancien  Reg ,  trans  by  Henry  Reeve,  note  39,  p.  273. 

5  A.  Babeau,  La  Ville  sous  1' ancien  rigime,  ii,  9  ;  Reeve’s  translation  of  De  Tocque- 
•ville,  Ancien  riginie,  notes  60-62,  pp.  286,  287. 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  MAN 


19 


ecclesiastical  encroachments.  Thomas  Aquinas,  the  oracle  of  the 
Church,  had  recognized  the  popular  will  as  a  limitation  upon  the 
royal  power,  and  had  commended  the  elective  form  of  monarchy.* 
Marsilio  of  Padua,  in  his  Defensor  Pads,  was  even  more  pro¬ 
nounced  in  favor  of  popular  .sovereignty.  “The  sovereignty  of 
the  State,’’  he  said,  “  rests  with  the  people;  by  it  properly  are  the 
laws  made  and  to  it  they  owe  their  validity.  From  the  nation 
itself  proceeds  all  rights  and  powers,  it  is  the  authoritative  law¬ 
giver  among  men.’”  In  the  sixteenth  century  the  Calvinists  and 
the  Teague  alternately  made  use  of  the  theory  of  popular  sover¬ 
eignty.®  This  theory  was  revived  in  the  eighteenth  century  and 
popularized  by  Rousseau  and  his  disciples. 

The  doctrine  of  natural  rights  has  not  so  remote  an  origin  for 
France.  De  Tocqueville  rightly  pointed  out  the  distinction  be¬ 
tween  liberty,  regarded  as  “the  enjoyment  of  a  privilege’’  and 
liberty  considered  as  “the  exercise  of  a  universal  right’’;  he  also 
showed  that  the  Romans  and  the  feudal  aristocracy  figured  their 
liberties  to  themselves  under  the  former  type;  and  that  it  was 
not  till  the  eighteenth  century  that  the  French  nation  began  to 
conceive  of  liberty  as  a  natural  right.* 

This  transformation  of  the  theory  of  liberty  from  a  privilege  to 
a  natural  right  was  chiefly  accomplished  after  1734.  Boulainvil- 
liers,  in  L' Histoire  de  I'ancien  gouvernement  de  la  France,  published 
(1727)  in  Holland  after  his  death,  asserted  as  its  fundamental 
thought:  “  Le  gouvernement  feodal  est  le  chef  d’oeuvre  de  I’esprit 
humain.’’  To  the  author,  all  progress  of  royal,  civil,  or  municipal 
authority  is  an  usurpation  of  the  rights  of  the  nobility,  who  were 
the  only  heirs  of  the  early  Franks,  conquerors  of  the  Gauls.® 
This  champion  of  the  feudal  aristocracy  was  not  answered  in  the 
name  of  democracy,  but  of  privileged  rights.  Abb^  Dubois,  the 
secretary  of  the  French  Academy,  replied  in  “  the  name  of  Roman 
Gaul,  semi-municipal  and  semi-monarchical.’’  This  reply,  en¬ 
titled,  "Histoire  critique  de  i' etablisse7nt7it  de  la  nionarchie  f7a7i- 

'  Poole,  Illustrations  of  the  History  of  Mediaeval  Thought,  p.  242. 

^  Ibid.,  p.  267. 

*  E.  d’Eichthal,  souveraineti  du  peuple,  37-40 

^Memoirs,  Letters  and  Remains  of  Alexis  de  Tocqueville,  i,  pp.  254-260,  2  vols. 
London,  1861. 

*  M.artin,  Histoire  de  France,  vol  xv,  334. 


20 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


(aise"  (1734),  denied  the  Frankish  conquest  and  asserted  that  the 
French  monarchy  had  succeeded  in  a  peacable  way  to  the  rights 
of  the  Roman  Empire  over  the  Gauls,  and  that  the  feudal  system 
had  been  established  by  usurpation  several  centuries  later.  Public 
opinion  and  the  judgment  of  'Cae.  savants ,  says  Martin,  pronounced 
in  favor  of  Dubois. ‘ 

Saint  Pierre,  d’Argenson,  and  Montesquieu  contributed  to  the 
political  literature  of  the  century,  but  did  not  formulate  a  new 
theorj'  of  rights.  The  Physiocrats  applied  the  natural  law  to 
economic  problems,  but  not  specifically  to  political  questions; 
this  was  reserved  for  Rousseau.  In  the  Genevan  philosopher’s 
writings,  natural  rights  and  kindred  democratic  ideas  were  treated 
in  such  a  popular  style  that  they  were  able  to  revolutionize  the 
French  political  theories  in  a  generation. 

A  critical  student  cannot  attribute  complete  originality  to 
Rousseau;  the  similarity  of  his  views  to  those  of  Eocke  is  too 
striking.  He  borrowed  from  his  English  predecessor  psychologi¬ 
cal,  philosophical  and  political  conceptions.”  The  Contrat  Social 
(1762),  however,  according  with  the  nascent  political  Zeit-Geist  of 
France,  found  conditions  favorable  to  the  ready  acceptance  of  its 
ideas.  The  philosophers  had  shaken  the  authority  of  dogma, 
humanitarian  views  were  gaining  prominence,  men  were  tired  of 
arbitrary  imprisonments  and  of  useless  privileges,  moreover,  the 
long  struggle  between  the  monarch  and  the  parlements  was  still 
unsettled,  the  theory  of  the  right  of  parlement  to  refuse  to  record 
decrees  was  found  to  need  a  firmer  basis  than  custom.  The  sym¬ 
pathies  of  even  the  nobles  were  awakened  in  behalf  of  the  peas¬ 
ants  and  the  curates.  The  Physiocrats  hoped  for  tax  reform,  to 
be  effected  by  a  strong  sovereign,  though,  when  attempted  by 
Turgot,  it  had  failed.  Amid  such  conditions  the  Contrat  Social 

*  Martin,  Histoirt  de  France,  355. 

’  R.  L.  Corwin,  Entwicklung  und  Vergleichung  der  Erziehungslehren  von  John 
Locke  und  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau,  Heidelberg,  1894;  Vasille  Saftu,  Ein  Vergleich 
der  phy sicken  Erziehung  bet  Locke  und  Rousseau,  Bucarest,  1889 ;  David  G. 
Ritchie,  The  Social  Contract,  in  vi.  vol.  of  Pol.  Sc.  Quart. ;  Jaeger,  Geschickte  der 
socialen  Bewegung  und  der  Socialismus  in  Franckereich,  \o\.  ii,  342,  Berlin,  1890; 
Prof.  J.  Horning,  Les  idles  politiques  de  Rousseau,  in  J.  J.  Rousseau  jugi  par  les 
Genevois  d'aujourd'hui,  p.  135  et  seq.  ;  also  M.  Jules  Vuy  in  Bulletin  de  L’Institut 
National  Genevois  for  j88j,  pp.  273-344;  Rousseau  et  Locke,  Henri  Marion  ;  J. 
Locke,  Sa  Vie  et  son  Oeuvre  d'apris  des  documents  nouveaux,  Paris,  1893. 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  MAN 


21 


was  being  read.  Its  striking,  stimulating  apothegms  furnished 
apt  quotations.  Its  effect  was  revolutionary.  Even  philosophers 
and  magistrates  were  not  insensible  to  its  stimulus.*  When  the 
nation  was  called  to  speak,  on  the  eve  of  the  Estates  General,  in 
pamphlets  and  in  cahiers,  the  influence  of  Rousseau  was  patent. 
The  speeches  made  in  the  National  Assembly  were  constantly 
interlarded  with  quotations  and  ideas  from  Contrat  Social.^ 

After  this  general  introduction  to  the  political  theories  of  the 
Revolution,  we  are  ready  to  examine  the  remaining  articles  of  the 
Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man.  We  shall  place  in  parallel 
with  these  some  quotations  from  the  Contrat  Social  that  will  serve 
to  indicate  the  similarity  of  their  ideas. 


“  I.  Men  are  born  and  remain  free  and 
equal  in  rights.  Social  distinctions  may 
only  be  founded  upon  the  general  good.” 

“  2.  The  aim  of  all  political  associations 
is  the  preservation  of  the  national  and  im¬ 
prescriptible  rights  of  man.  These  rights 
are  liberty,  property,  security,  and  resist¬ 
ance  of  oppression.” 


“  It  is  agreed  that  anything  of  power  or 
property  or  liberty  which  is  alienated  by 
the  social  compact,  is  only  a  part  of  all 
the  use  of  which  is  of  importance  to  the 
community.”  ’ 

“  To  find  a  form  of  association  which 
shall  defend  and  protect  with  the  public 
force  the  person  and  property  of  each 
associate,  and  by  means  of  which  each, 
uniting  with  all,  shall  obey  however  only 
himself,  and  remain  as  free  as  before ; 
such  is  the  fundamental  problem  of  which 
the  Social  Contract  gives  the  solution.”^ 


*  Voltaire  in  a  letter  of  April  2,  1764,  wrote  :  “  Tout  ce  que  je  vois  jete  les  semences 

d  une  revolution  qui  arrivera  immanquablement,  et  dont  je  n’aurai  pas  le  plaisir  d’etre 
teimoin.  .  .  .  Les  jeunes  gens  sont  bien  heureux  :  ils  verront  de  belles  choses.” 

Quoted  in  Martin,  Hist,  de  Fr.,  vol.  xvi,  136.  Malesherbes,  in  speaking  to  the  king 
as  the  organ  of  parlement  in  1770,  said  :  “  You  hold  your  crown.  Sire,  from  God 
alone ;  but  you  will  not  refuse  yourself  the  satisfaction  of  believing  that,  for  your 
power,  you  are  likewise  indebted  to  the  voluntary  submission  of  your  subjects.  There 
exist  in  France  some  inviolable  rights,  which  belong  to  the  nation.”  Quoted  from 
Remontrances  de  la  Cours  des  Aides,  1770,  by  De  Tocqueville  ;  Mlmoires,  etc.,  i, 
259- -60.  For  Rousseau’s  literary  influence,  see  Joseph  Texte,  Jean  Jacques  Rous, 
sec^iet  les  Origines  du  Cosmopolitisme  Litteraire,  Liv.  ii,  Paris,  1895. 

*  K  pamphlet  of  17891  “  Lettre  d’un  Cure  de  Picardie  k  un  ev^que  sur  le  droit  des 
cur6s  d’assister  aux  assemblies  du  clerge  et  aux  Etats-generaux,”  etc.,  illustrates  how 
the  curates  applied  the  natural  rights  doctrine  :  “  Les  droits  des  hommes  reunis  en 
sociiti  ne  sont  point  fondis  sur  leur  histoire  mais  sur  leur  nature.  II  ne  peut  y  avoir 
de  raisons  de  perpituer  les  etablissements  faits  sans  raisons,  3  p.”  In  vol.  84  of  French 
Revolution  Collection  of  the  Pennsylvania  Historical  Society. 

®  Contrat  Social,  Livre  ii,  ch.  iv.  43.  *  Ibid.,  Livre  i,  ch.  vi,  20. 


22 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


“  3.  The  principle  [principe]  of  all  sov¬ 
ereignty  resides  essentially  in  the  nation. 
No  body  nor  individual  may  exercise  any 
authority  which  does  not  proceed  directly 
from  the  nation.” 

“4.  Liberty  consists  in  being  able  to  do 
everything  which  injures  no  one  else; 
hence  the  exercise  of  the  natural  rights  of 
each  man  has  no  limits  except  those  which 
assure  to  the  other  member  of  the  society 
the  enjoyment  of  the  same  rights.  These 
limits  can  only  be  determined  by  law.” 

“  5.  Law  can  only  prohibit  such  actions 
as  are  hurtful  to  society.  Nothing  may 
be  prevented  which  is  not  forbidden  by 
law,  and  no  one  may  be  forced  to  do  any¬ 
thing  not  provided  for  by  law.” 

“  6.  Law  is  the  expression  of  the  general 
will.  Every  citizen  has  a  right  to  partici¬ 
pate  personally  or  through  his  representa¬ 
tives  in  its  formation.  It  must  be  the 
same  for  all,  whether  it  protects  or  pun¬ 
ishes.  All  citizens,  being  equal  in  the 
eyes  of  the  law,  are  equally  eligible  to  all 
dignities  and  to  all  public  positions  and 
occupations,  according  to  their  abilities 
and  without  distinction  except  that  of 
their  virtues  and  talents.” 


“  I  say  then  that  the  sovereignty,  being 
only  the  exercise  of  the  general  will,  can 
never  alienate  itself,  and  that  the  sover¬ 
eign,  who  is  not  a  collective  being,  can  be 
represented  only  by  himself ;  power  can 
transmit  itself,  but  not  will.”  * 

“  Any  service  that  a  citizen  can  render 
the  State  is  due  from  him  whenever  the 
sovereign  demands  it;  but  the  sovereign, 
for  his  part,  cannot  place  any  burden  upon 
his  subjects  which  will  not  be  useful  to  the 
community ;  he  can  not  even  desire  to  do 
so,  for,  under  the  law  of  reason  as  under 
the  law  of  nature,  there  is  nothing  done 
without  a  purpose.”  ’ 

“  When  1  say  that  the  object  of  laws  is 
always  general,  I  mean  that  the  law  con¬ 
siders  subjects  in  a  body,  and  actions  as 
abstract ;  a  man  is  never  considered  as  an 
individual  nor  an  action  as  an  individual 
action.”  • 

“  By  whatever  path  we  return  to  the 
principle,  we  always  reach  the  same  con¬ 
clusion  ;  that  the  social  compact  estab- 
li.shes  among  citizens  such  an  equality 
that  they  all  engage  under  the  same 
conditions,  and  should  enjoy  the  same 
rights.  Thus  by  the  nature  of  the  agree¬ 
ment,  an  act  of  sovereignty,  that  is,  any 
authentic  act  of  the  general  will,  obliges 
or  favors  equally  all  citizens ;  so  that  the 
sovereign  knows  only  the  body  of  the 
nation  and  distinguishes  no  one  of  those 
composing  it.* 


The  Physiocrats  also  had,  in  a  measure,  advocated  these  prin¬ 
ciples.  Both  Quesnay  and  Turgot  expressed  themselves  unc  :[ui- 
vocally  for  the  protection  of  private  property*  Let  it  be  asst^  ed 
with  the  strongest  emphasis  that  these  six  articles  were,:]  ot 

1  Contrat  Social,  Livre  II,  ch.  I,  35.  ’  Ibid.,  LiVre  II,  ch.  IV,  43-44. 

•  Ibid.,  Livre  II,  ch.  VI,  54-55.  ^  Ibid.,  Livre  II,  ch.  IV,  p.  46. 

*  Quesnay  said :  “  The  security  of  property  is  the  essential  foundation  of  the  economic 
order  of  society.”  Maximes  ginirales  au  gouverntment,  Physiocrates,  ii,  83,  Paris, 
1846.  Turgot,  writing  of  the  omnipotence  of  the  State,  said :  “This  principle  that 


THE  RIGHTS  OF  MAN 


23 


merely  the  expression  of  theories.  They  had  an  intensely  prac¬ 
tical  genesis,  for  they  were  the  slowly-matured  product  of  a  reac¬ 
tion  against  a  long-felt  vexatious  regime.  That  regime  had  in¬ 
terfered  with  private  property  and  with  individual  action  in  such 
ways  as  to  be  grievous,  yes,  intensely  grievous  to  the  people. 

“Art.  16.  A  society  in  which  the  observance  of  the  law  is  not 
assured,  nor  the  separation  of  powers  defined,  has  no  constitution 
at  all.” 

The  theory  of  the  separation  of  powers  was  one  idea  taught  by 
Montesquieu  *  that  had  been  gradually  accepted  by  his  country¬ 
men.  He  was  studied  by  the  would-be-publicists  of  the  Revolu¬ 
tionary  era,  and  much  stress  was  put  upon  this  constitutional 
principle.  The  Constitution  which  they  formed  is  the  best  ex¬ 
ample  of  the  thorough  application  of  this  impracticable  doctrine.’ 

In  this  discussion  we  have  shown  that  while  the  suggestion  of 
a  Declaration  of  Rights  came  from  the  early  American  State  Con¬ 
stitutions,  its  content  was  French.  Its  internal  resemblance  to 
the  American  instruments  is  attributable  to  the  fact  that  the 
abuses  to  be  feared  and  the  recognized  political  theories  were  the 
same  in  both  countries.  In  truth,  France  had  greater  reason  to 
apprehend  the  return  of  the  long-endured  abuses,  from  which  she 
was  even  then  endeavoring  to  extricate  herself,  than  had  Amer¬ 
ica.  Likewise  the  fact  that  each  country  had  derived  its  demo¬ 
cratic  views  from  a  common  source — the  teachings  of  the  English 
Puritans — largely  explains  the  identity  of  the  existing  political 
theories. 

nothing  should  limit  the  rights  of  society  upon  the  indiridual,  save  the  greater  good 
of  society,  appears  to  me  false  and  dangerous.  Every  man  is  born  free,  and  this  lib¬ 
erty  can  never  be  limited  unless  it  degenerate  into  license,  that  is  to  say,  ceases  to  be 
liberty.  .  .  .  It  is  forgotten  that  society  is  made  for  the  individual,  that  is,  insti¬ 

tuted  only  for  protecting  the  rights  of  all,  by  assuring  the  accomplishment  of  all  mutual 
duties.”  Quoted  by  M.  E.  Daire,  Physiocratis,  ii,  Introd.,  xxi,  xxii. 

*  Esprit  dis  Lois,  Liv.  xi. 

>  Saint  Girons,  Droit  public  francais,  treats  thoroughly  the  question  of  separation  of 
powers.  Mirabeau  in  referring  to  the  separation  of  powers,  in  a  speech  delivered  in 
the  Assembly  July  16,  1789,  pointed  out  the  general  misapprehension  of  this  theory: 
“  Nous  aurons  bientdt  occasion  d’exaniiner  cette  th^orie  des  trois  pouvoirs,  laquelle 
exactement  analys^e  montrera  peut  fitre  la  facility  de  I’esprit  humain  i  prendre  des 
mots  pour  des  choses,  des  formules  pour  des  arguments  et  a.  se  routiner  vers  un  certain 
ordre  d’id^es  sans  revenir  jamais  a  examiner  I’intelligible  definition  qu’il  a  prise  pour 
un  axiome.”  Arch.  Pari.,  VIII,  243. 


CONSTITUTION. 


The  States-General  which  met  at  Versailles,  May  5,  1789,  as¬ 
sumed  in  the  following  June  the  name  of  National  Assembly,  and 
undertook  the  formulation  of  a  written  constitution.  According 
to  the  current  views,  this  epochal  transformation  was  either  a 
political  freak  of  an  old  monarch}^,  newly  leavened  with  demo¬ 
cratic  ideas,  or  a  manifestation  of  the  rare  phenomenon  of  a 
nation’s  being  carried  sympathetically  in  the  wake  of  a  distant 
and  new-born  republic.  But  a  careful  consideration  of  the  events, 
institutions,  and  conditions  of  France  previous  to  the  action  of  the 
National  Assembly  proves  conclusively  that  the  traditional  in¬ 
terpretations  are  not  correct. 

It  is  foreign  to  the  province  of  the  present  paper  to  explore 
minutely  the  shadowy  historical  region,  whence  arose  the  politi¬ 
cal  institutions  of  monarchical  France,  or  to  analyze  exhaustively 
those  institutions  themselves.  It  is  sufficient  to  note  that  already 
at  the  beginning  of  the  XVII.  century  there  had  developed  cer¬ 
tain  institutions  with  a  normal  mode  of  procedure,  that  may  justly 
be  called  a  constitution,  not  embraced  in  written  documents,  but 
one  implied  in  the  institutions  and  usages.  The  leading  features 
of  that  constituted  government  were  four:U;he  King,  the  States- 
General,  the  Conseil  d' Etat  and  the  Parlement^ 

The  king  was  not  only  the  exeeutive,  but  the  initiator  of  laws, 
and  the  source  of  justice. 

The  States-General,  judged  by  precedents,  was  an  advisory 
body  to  the  king,  about  which  there  existed  much  uncertainty  as 
to  its  composition,  its  powers  and  its  period  of  assembling.  It 
was  dependent  upon  the  monarch  for  convocation,  and  for  the 
promulgation  of  the  results  of  its  deliberations.* 

The  Conseil  d' Etat,  composed  of  the  nobility,  was,  in  a  narrower 
sense,  the  permanent  advisory  council  of  the  king.  In  this  body 
the  laws  originated,  and  under  its  supervision  the  administration 


*  G.  Picot,  Histoire  des  Alats  generatix ;  Ch.  Langlois,  Atats  gentraux  in  La 


Grande  Encyclopidie, 


(24) 


CONSTITUTION 


25 

was  accomplished.  It  also  had  judicial  functions,  being  superior 
to  the  Parlement  as  a  cour  de  cassation  in  civil  cases. 

The  duties  of  the  Parlements  were  primarily  judicial,  but  in 
addition  the  Parlement  of  Paris  possessed  legislative  functions, 
inasmuch  as  the  laws  were  sent  to  it  for  registration.  The  Parle¬ 
ment  by  custom  had  come  to  make  use  of  remonstrances  to  the 
king  in  case  of  laws  distasteful  to  them.  Though  some  monarchs, 
as  Louis  XI.,  XII.,  and  Henry  IV.,  had  paid  some  regard  to  these 
remonstrances,'  yet  even  in  the  sixteenth  century  the  remonstrance 
did  not  stop  the  determined  monarch,  but  the  court  was  forced  to 
yield  to  the  royal  wish  in  the  lit  de  jiisticei^  There  existed,  there¬ 
fore,  a  singular  balance  of  power  between  the  Conseil  d' E tat  and 
Parlement.  The  Conseil  d' Etat,  as  a  cour  de  cassation,  might 
annul  the  parliamentary  remonstrance,  and,  inversely,  the  Parle¬ 
ment  might,  in  virtue  of  its  power  to  register,  check  the  laws  origi¬ 
nating  from  the  Conseil  d'Etat.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  however, 
that  even  at  this  period,  this  normal  distribution  of  functions  w'as 
not  so  balanced  and  guarded  as  to  avoid  abnormal  procedure. 
Neither  the  States  General  nor  the  Parlement  was  put  wholly  be¬ 
yond  the  control  of  the  executive. 

D’Avenel,  expressing  a  view  not  uncommon  in  the  earlier  days 
of  the  Revolution  of  1789,  asserts  in  his  remarkable  book,  Richelieu 
et  la  monarchie  absolue,  that  France  had  a  constitution  before  the 
ministry  of  the  politic  Richelieu,  yet  not  thereafter,’  but  it  is  dif¬ 
ficult  to  defend  such  a  declaration.  It  may  be  admitted  that  the 
States-General  were  no  longer  convoked  after  1614,  that  the  per- 
S07i7tel  of  the  nobility  was  altered,  that  the  Parle77ie7it  \vas  now  and 
then  forced  into  acquiescence  to  the  royal  will;  nevertheless  the 
two  bodies,  the  Conseil  d'  Etats  and  the  Parleme7it,  continued  to 
function  very  nearly  as  before,  and  at  times  the  Parle77ie7it  emerged 
from  its  submissiveness  and  haughtily  asserted  its  pretensions. 

In  a  series  of  conflicts  between  the  court  and  the  Parle77ient, 
into  which  we  have  not  space  to  go  exhaustiveljq  the  idea  of  fun¬ 
damental  or  constitutional  laws,  of  which  the  Parleme7it  declared 
itself  the  guardian,  was  repeatedly  asserted;  in  the  later  period  of 


1  Jules  Flammermont,  Remontrances  du  Parlement  de  Paris  au  XVI II.  siicle, 
Introd.,  XCII. 

^  Dictionnaire  Nouvelle,  Parlements. 

»  T.  i,  78,  266. 


26 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


this  constitutional  struggle,  partly  from  the  inability  of  the  Parle- 
7ne7it  to  maintain  its  pretensions  and  partly  from  the  development 
of  the  ideas  of  natural  rights,  of  the  rights  of  the  people  and  of 
the  rights  of  the  nation,  the  desire  for  some  more  distinct  defini¬ 
tion  of  the  power  of  the  executive  and  the  rights  of  the  nation 
became  manifest.  The  Parlement,  composed  of  an  aristocracy 
whose  office  was  an  hereditary  possession,  was  naturally  alert 
to  extend  its  political  influence ;  this  extension  of  necessity 
brought  it  into  conflict  with  the  absolutism  of  the  monarch. 
When  a  vigorous  monarch,  or  skillful,  energetic  minister  was  at 
the  head  of  affairs,  the  Parlement  was  driven  to  humble  obedience; 
but  where  there  was  a  regency,  a  weak  monarch,  or  a  crisis, 
financial  or  administrative,  the  legal  aristocracy  reasserted  and 
extended  their  pretensions.  By  a  decree  of  February  21,  1641, 
Richelieu  declared  that  the  parlemenis  had  been  established  only 
for  granting  justice,  forbade  any  modification  of  decrees,  ordered 
that  in  financial  matters  they  might  remonstrate  once,  but  in  ad¬ 
ministrative  matters  no  remonstrance  was  allowed.  During  the 
remainder  of  Louis  XIII’s  reign  they  were  obedient;  but  on  the 
death  of  the  king  they  immediately  manifested  their  vitality  by 
breaking  his  will  and  fixing  the  regency.' 

The  Fronde  was  the  acme  of  the  parliamentary  resistance  of  this 
period.  Louis  XIV.  did  not  forget  this  high-handed  opposition, 
and  consequently  by  two  decrees  he  reduced  this  recalcitrant  body 
to  a  strictly  subordinate  position  for  the  last  forty  years  of  his 
reign.’  But  on  the  death  of  the  Grand  Monarch,  the  Parlement 
showed  its  old  spirit,  annulled  the  will  of  the  dead  king  concern¬ 
ing  the  regency,  and  for  twenty  years  solemnly  reiterated  its 


*  Martin,  Histoire  dt  France,  xi,  543. 

*  These  two  decrees,  one  1667,  the  other  1673,  are  given  in  substance  in  Jules 
Flammermont,  Remontrances,  Intro,  i  and  ii.  The  second  was  tie  more  sweeping  r 
‘‘  D6s  que  les  gens  du  Roi  auraient  repu  les  ordonnances,  6dits,  declarations  ou  lettres- 
patents,  ils  devraient  dorenavant  les  presenter  tout  de  suite  aux  cours  toutes  chambres 
assembiees,  qui  auraient  h  les  enregistrer  purement  et  simplement  sans  aucune  modifi¬ 
cation,  restriction,  in  autres  clauses  qui  en  pussent  surseoir  ou  empecher  la  pleine  et 
entiere  execution.  Dans  le  cas  oil  les  cours  auraient  des  remontrances  i  presenter 
elles  ne  pourraient  plus  le  faire  qu’apres  que  I’arret  d’enregistrement  aurait  ete  donne 
et  separement  redige.  Mais  que  le  Roi  donn6it  suite  ou  non  k  ces  remontrances,  qui 
devaient  6tre  dressee  dans  la  huitaine  apres  I’enregistrement,  les  cours  ne  devaient 
pas  faire  d’iteratives  remontrances.” 


CONSTITUTION 


27 


vag^e  constitutional  claims  in  elaborate  remonstrances.  To  this 
period  of  activity  succeeded  a  time  of  comparative  submission, 
in  which  the  remonstrances  are  less  prompt,  haughty,  and  in¬ 
sistent. 

In  1748,  the  struggle  renewed  itself,  and  soon  each  side  showed 
an  ardent  determination  to  conquer.  The  monarch  resorted  to 
lits  de  justice,  to  exile,  and  to  the  institution  of  irregular  courts  in 
order  to  provoke  the  magistrates  to  obey,  while  they  answered 
with  iterative  remonstrances  and  with  refusals  to  dispense  justice. 
From  these  remonstrances  we  are  able  to  ascertain  the  pretensions 
of  the  Parlement,  and  to  trace,  though  with  much  vagueness  and 
incoherence,  those  principles  which  they  called  constitutional  and 
fundamental.  On  the  other  hand,  the  responses  of  the  king  re¬ 
veal  the  persistent  claims  of  absolutism  as  to  the  royal  source  of 
law. 

The  magistrates  based  their  shadowy  claims  upon  different 
grounds.  Frequently  they  appealed  to  precedent;  as  in  1718,  the 
Parlement  of  Paris  declared  that  the  most  absolute  kings,  specific¬ 
ally  Louis  XIV.,  had  continually  made  use  of  the  Parlement  for 
registration. ‘  Justice  and  expediency  were  also  invoked  in  their 
support. 

Already  in  the  period  of  the  regency,  following  closely  after 
their  submissiveness  under  Louis  XIV,  we  find  a  hazy  but  gen¬ 
eral  distinction  between  statutory  and  constitutional  laws : 
“While  we  recognize.  Sire,  that  you  alone  are  lord  and  master 
and  the  sole  lawgiver,  and  that  there  are  laws  which  changing 
times,  the  needs  of  your  people,  the  maintenance  of  order  and  the 
administration  of  your  kingdom  may  oblige  you  to  modify,  sub¬ 
stituting  new  ones  according  to  the  forms  always  observed  in  this 
state,  we  nevertheless  believe  it  to  be  our  duty  to  call  to  your 
attention  the  existence  of  laws  as  old  as  the  monarchy,  which  are 
permanent  and  invariable,  the  guardianship  of  which  was  com¬ 
mitted  to  you  along  with  the  crown  itself.  .  .  .  It  is  by  reason  of 
the  permanence  of  such  laws  that  we  have  you  as  lord  and  mas¬ 
ter.  It  is  this  permanence  which  leads  us  to  hope  that  the  crown, 
having  rested  upon  your  head  during  a  long,  just,  and  glorious 
reign,  will  pass  to  your  posterit}’^  for  all  time  to  come.  In  recent 
times  [the  Parlement  adds]  it  has  been  clearly  shown  how  much 


*  Flammermont,  Remontrances,  95. 


28 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


France  owes  to  the  maintenance  of  these  original  law'S  of  the  state, 
and  how  important  it  is  in  the  service  of  your  Majesty  that  your 
Parle77ie7it,  which  is  responsible  to  you  and  to  the  nation  for  their 
exact  observations,  should  assiduously  guard  them  against  any 
encroachment.”  *  Here  then  is  found  in  embryo  the  programme 
which  the  magistrates  pursued  in  their  legislative. opposition  to 
the  crown.  Nevertheless  there  is,  judging  from  a  comparison  of 
these  earlier  remonstrances  and  those  emitted  later,  some  progress 
in  the  distinction  of  organic  and  of  statutory  law,  and  in  the 
enumeration  of  the  fundamental  principles. 

The  Parlevie7it  of  Brittany,  in  a  remonstrance  of  July,  1771, 
said :  ‘  ‘  There  is  an  essential  difference  between  the  transitory 
regulations  which  vary  with  the  times,  and  the  fundamental  laws 
upon  which  the  Constitution  of  the  monarchy  rests.  In  respect 
to  the  former  [that  is  the  transitory  regulations]  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  courts  to  direct  and  enlighten  the  ruling  power  (1’ autorite), 
although  their  opinions  must,  in  the  last  instance,  yield  to  the 
decision  of  your  wisdom,  since  it  appertains  to  you  alone  to  regu¬ 
late  everything  relating  to  the  administration.  To  administer 
the  state  is  not,  however,  to  change  its  constitution.  ...  It  is, 
therefore,  most  indispensable  to  distinguish  or  to  except  the  cases 
where  the  right  of  expostulation  suffices  to  enlighten  the  ruling 
power  in  an  administration  which,  in  spite  of  its  wide  scope,  still 
has  its  limits,  and  those  cases  where  the  happy  inability  [of  the 
monarch]  to  overstep  the  bounds  established  by  the  constitution 
implies  the  power  necessary  legally  to  oppose  what  an  arbitrary 
will  cannot  and  may  not  do.”  ’  To  determine  accurately  the  con¬ 
tent  of  the  lois  fonda7ne7itales  of  which  the  Parle77te7its  asserted 
themselves  to  be  protectors,  is  difficult.  The  Parlements  them¬ 
selves  did  not  deem  it  expedient,  either  for  their  own  claims  or  for 
those  of  the  monarch,  to  attempt  a  too  explicit  formulation  of 
these  laws;  vagueness  was  regarded  a  political  virtue.  A  remon¬ 
strance  of  the  coiir  des  co777ptes,  aides  et  fina7ices  of  Normandy, 
openly  admitted  the  disadvantage  of  such  an  enumeration : 
‘‘  Deign,  Sire,  to  examine  for  yourself  to  what  the  decree  of  De- 

•  Cited  in  Prof.  J.  H.  Robinson’s  very  suggestive  article,  The  Tennis  Court  Oath 
{^Political  Science  Quarterly,  Sept.,  1895)  ;  from  the  Itkratives  Remontrances  sur  la 
Refonte  des  Monnaies,  July  26,  1718,  Flammermont’s  Remontrances,  94,  95. 

’  Cited  by  Prof.  Robinson,  The  Tennis  Court  Oath,  467. 


CONSTITUTION 


29 


cember  tends  ;  it  seems  destined  to  draw  the  line  between  the 
power  of  the  sovereign  and  the  liberty  of  his  subjects;  this  line 
always  undetermined,  which  no  hand  has  been  bold  enough  to 
fix,  which  a  salutary  veil  covers  with  useful  shadows;  the  tender¬ 
ness  of  princes  for  their  people  and  the  love  of  the  people  for  their 
princes  draw  or  withdraw  these  shadows  according  to  the  times 
or  the  reigns.  Those  who  dare  to-day  to  fix  these  limits  and  to 
say  to  France:  There  ends  the  legitimate  liberty  of  the  people, 
serve  your  interests  badly,  even  politically.”  ‘ 

The  most  precise  formulation  of  the  organic  law  of  the  French 
monarchy  which  I  have  found  is  the  protest  of  the  princes, 
signed  April  4,  1771,  and  directed  against  the  Mat/peou  Parlement: 
“We,  the  undersigned,  consider  that  the  French  monarchy 
has  been  sustained,  together  with  the  glory,  the  splendor,  and  the 
power  which  it  has  enjoyed  for  so  many  centuries  only  by  the 
maintenance  of  the  primitive  laws  which  are  inherent  in  it,  and 
form  its  title  (droit)  and  essence;  that  the  liberty  belonging  to 
every  Frenchman,  the  title  and  the  ownership  of  his  property, 
that  of  inheriting  from  fathers  or  of  receiving  from  relatives  or 
friends,  without  being  able  to  be  deprived  or  hindered,  otherwise 
than  by  the  legal  application  of  law  for  some  crime  previously 
and  competently  judged,  and  not  by  arbitrary  and  absolute  will, 
are  not  the  only  rights  of  the  nation  and  of  the  subjects  nor  the 
only  fundamental  laws  of  the  monarchy;  that  the  right  of 
Frenchmen,  one  of  the  most  useful  to  the  monarch  and  one  of  the 
most  precious  to  his  subjects,  is  to  have  certain  bodies  of  citizens, 
perpetual  and  irremovable,  acknowledged  in  all  times  by  the 
kings  and  by  the  nation,  who  under  whatever  form  and  name 
they  have  existed,  concentrated  in  themselves  the  general  right 
of  every  subject  to  invoke  the  laws,  to  demand  their  rights,  and 
to  have  recourse  to  the  Prince;  whose  most  important  func¬ 
tions  have  always  been  to  be  charged  with  watching  over  the 
maintenance  of  the  established  laws,  to  weigh  in  new  laws  their 
utility  or  the  dangers  of  contradictions  which  might  occur  with 
the  old  laws,  to  verify  them,  and  to  represent  to  the  sovereign  all 
that  is  prejudicial  to  the  rights  of  his  subjects  or  to  the  primordial 
and  constitutive  laws  of  his  kingdom.  .  .  .  ;  that  this  necessary 

*  Jules  Flammermont,  Le  Chancelier  Alaupeou  et  Us  ParUments,  Paris,  1885, 
370  PP. 


30 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


surety  cannot  exist  without  irremovability  of  the  title  of  those  to 
whom  are  confided  so  important  functions,  that  they  have  always 
been  regarded  as  one  of  the  principal  safeguards  of  public  liberty 
against  the  abuse  of  arbitrary  power;  that  they  are  an  integral 
part  of  the  constitution  of  the  State,  and  are  found  as  much  as 
any  other  law  in  the  order  of  the  fundamental  laws  of  the  mon¬ 
archy.”'  However,  the  apparent  attempt  to  be  explicit  here 
originates  primarily,  not  in  a  desire  to  state  distinctly  the  consti¬ 
tutional  law,  but  rather  to  protect  the  prerogatives  of  the  Parle- 
merits  by  coupling  them  with  certain  principles  generally  recog¬ 
nized  as  inviolable. 

The  Parleme7iis,  in  their  resistance  to  the  royal  power,  showed, 
as  early  as  the  Fronde,  a  tendency  to  support  each  other,  but  it  is 
particularly  in  the  period  of  the  Maupeou  Parlement  that  the 
claims  to  unity  and  indivisibility  became  prominent."  These 
remonstrances,  as  well  as  the  royal  responses,  were  not  withheld 
from  the  public,  as  the  ordonnances  which  imposed  upon  the 
magistrates  the  duty  of  keeping  their  deliberations  secret  im¬ 
plied,  but  were  hawked  about  the  streets  and  eagerly  welcomed  by 
the  people.  Since  in  times  of  opposition,  each  Parlement  aroused 
the  sympathies  of  the  citizens  under  its  jurisdiction,  their  combi¬ 
nation  for  mutual  support  against  the  crown  extended  the  area  oi 
popular  agitation.  This  exciting  literature,  issuing  from  the  dif¬ 
ferent  courts,  had,  therefore,  an  educative  effect  upon  the  popular 
mind,  rather  in  emphasizing  the  need  of  some  limitation  to  royal 
power  than  in  developing  distinct  and  well-defined  notions  ot 
political  laws.”  The  Parlement,  while  professing  exemplary  obe¬ 
dience  to  the  king,  said  that  there  were  moral  limits  to  their 
obedience.*  That  also  took  a  popular  turn,  in  professing  to  repre- 

'  Flammermont,  Le  Chancelier  Maupeou  et  les  Parleme7its,  380,  381. 

Ibid.,  1 17. 

’  Barbier  has  left  record  of  how  intimate  was  the  sympathy  of  the  people  with  the 
Parle7)ie7it  in  the  struggle  over  Jansenism :  “  Le  bonne  Ville  de  Paris  est  jansdniste 
de  la  t€te  aux  pieds.  .  .  .  Tous  degres  de  Paris,  hommes,  femmes,  petitfes  enfants, 

tiennent  pour  cette  doctrine,  sans  savoir  la  matidre,  sans  rien  entendre  h  ces  distinctions 
et  interpretations,  par  haine  centre  Rome  et  les  j^suites,  tout  ce  monde  est  entSt 
comme  un  diable.  Les  femmes,  femmelettes  et  jusqu’  aux  femmes  de  chambre  s’y 
feraient  hocher.”  Cited  in  Aubertin,  I' Esprit  public  au  XVIII  siicle,  263,  264. 

*  “  Votre  parlement  s’est  toujours  fait  gloire  de  leur  donner  I’exemple  de  I’ob^issance. 
II  vous  a  toujours  prouv6  par  sa  conduite  que,  si  I’obeissance  due  ^  la  Majesty  du  Roi 


CONSTITUTION 


31 


sent  the  nation  or  the  people  in  the  absence  of  the  States  General. 
The  remonstrance  of  the  cour  des  aides,  probably  drawn  up  by 
Malesherbes,  in  February,  1771,  indicates  these  popular  preten¬ 
sions.  “The  courts  are  to-day  the  only  protectors  of  the  feeble 
and  the  unfortunate:  there  have  existed  for  a  long  time  no  States- 
General  and  in  the  greater  part  of  the  kingdom  no  provincial 
estates;  all  the  bodies,  except  the  courts,  are  reduced  to  a  mute 
and  passive  obedience.  No  individual  in  the  provinces  would 
venture  to  expose  himself  to  the  vengeance  of  a  commatidant,  of  a 
commissaire  du  conseil,  and  still  less  to  those  of  a  minister  of  Your 
Majesty.  The  courts  are  then  the  only  ones  to  whom  it  is  still 
permitted  to  raise  a  voice  in  favor  of  the  people,  and  Your  Majesty 
does  not  wish  to  take  away  this  last  resource  from  distant  pro¬ 
vinces.  But  this  decree,  exiling  the  Parlement  of  Paris,  tends  to 
render  this  resource  illusory.’’  ‘ 

Notwithstanding  this  avowed  guardianship  of  the  national 
rights,  the  feeling  gradually  grew  that  these  ill-defined  funda¬ 
mental  laws  were  too  vague,  that  the  Parlemetits,  though  persist¬ 
ent,  stopped  short  of  pertinacity,  and  that  an  aristocratic  magis¬ 
tracy  was  not  the  real  representation  of  the  nation. 

The  first  expression,  so  far  as  I  have  noted,  of  the  need  of  a 
more  definite  political  rampart  against  the  crown  was  that  of  the 
Marquis  de  Mirabeau  and  his  brother.  In  1754,  the  Marquis 
wrote  to  his  brother:  “The  more  I  consider  the  abuses  of  society 
and  their  remedy,  the  more  I  return  to  what  you  said  to  me  five 
years  ago,  .  .  .  that  twelve  principles  established  in  twelve  lines, 
once  written  in  the  head  of  the  Prince  or  of  his  minister,  and 
exactly  followed  in  details,  would  correct  and  regenerate  every- 


etait  perdue,  elle  se  retrouverait  dans  sa  cour  de  parlement.  Mais  s’il  y  a  des  occasions 
oil  son  attachement  inviolable  aux  lois  et  au  bien  public  semble  ne  pouvoir  pas  s’allier 
avec  une  obeissance  sans  bornes,  alors  il  serait  criminel  envers  vous  nieme  et  envers 
I’Etat  d’oublier  ce  que  lui  disait  en  1567  un  chancelier  de  France  :  Vous  avez  jur6 
degarder  tous  les  communs  elements  du  Roi,  bien  de  garder  les  ordonnances  qui  sont 
ses  vrais  comniandenienls.  Ou  ce  qu’il  disait  lui-nieme  en  1604  au  Souverain  ;  Si 
c’est  desobeissance  de  bien  servir,  le  Parlement  fait  ordinairement  cette  faute,  et 
quand  il  se  trouve  conflit  entre  la  pui.ssance  absolue  du  Roi  et  le  bien  de  son  service, 
il  juge  I’un  pr6f6rable  4  I’autre,  non  par  d6sob6issance,  mais  pour  son  devoir,  a  la 
ddcharge  de  sa  conscience.”  Grandes  Eevionlratices,  April  9,  1753;  Flamniermont. 
Remontrances,  529. 

*  Flammermont,  Le  Chancelier  Maupeou,  269. 


32 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


thing.”  ‘  But  this  was  only  a  solitary  voice  crying  in  the  wilder¬ 
ness;  it  neither  found  a  response  in  the  people,  nor  became  the 
determined  policy  of  its  enunciator. 

The  people,  however,  were  awakening  at  least  to  the  abuses  of 
the  ancien  regime,  and  were  groping  after  a  remedy.  Books, 
dealing  with  the  right  of  insurrection,  of  the  superiority  of  the 
nation  to  the  crown,  and  with  the  refutation  of  divine  rights  and 
passive  obedience,  were  written,  read  and  discussed.’  Humanitar¬ 
ian  views,  the  theory  of  natural  rights,  and,  consequently,  a  sense 
of  the  importance  of  the  third  estate,  gained  ground  by  degrees. 
Meanwhile  the  contest  between  the  king  and  his  Parlements  con¬ 
tinued.  The  Notables,  called  in  1787,  affirmed  that  the  impre¬ 
scriptible  right  to  determine  fiyiancial  questions  belonged  only  to  the 
representatives  of  the  natio7i.^  The  States-General  were  called  for 
1789.*  Owing  to  the  failure  of  the  monarch  or  minister,  pur¬ 
posely  or  otherwise,  to  take  the  initiative,  the  radical  element  of 
the  nation  were  able  to  secure  almost  universal  suffrage  and  the 
union  of  the  orders  in  one  body.  Judging  from  the  cahier  and 
the  pamphlets  of  1788  and  1789,  we  infer  that  the  consciousness 
of  the  inadequacy  of  the  old  French  Constitution  was  general.*’ 
The  cahiers,  upon  the  question  of  the  French  Constitution,  were 
moreover  divided  ;  some  desired  the  preservation  of  the  old  Con¬ 
stitution,  some  a  declaration  of  the  rights  of  the  nation,  some  a 
charte,  while  one  formulated  a  new,  complete  constitution;  on  the 
whole,  a  majority  favored  a  more  careful  guarantee  of  the  nation’s 


1  Les  Mirabtaus,  i.  i8i.  This  refers  to  constitutional  ideas,  not  to  a  written  con¬ 
stitution. 

*  Aubertin,  391,  392:  Voltaire  complained  in  the  ’6o’s  of  being  tired  of  people^ 
“  qui  gouvernaient  les  fetats  du  fond  leurs  greniers.”  Rocquain,  L' esprit  riv.,  244. 

®  Gomel,  334. 

*  The  calling  of  the  Etats  g6n6raux  had  been  suggested  by  la  Rochefoucauld,  1774  ; 
by  d’Espremenil,  1775,  and  in  remonstrances  of  the  cour  des  aides  of  Paris  and  the 
Parlement  of  Besamjon  1775  and  1781,  and  in  the  Assembly  of  Notables  by  Lafayette 
in  1787. 

*  The  contents  of  the  cahiers  are  difficult  to  tabulate,  owing  to  their  various  modes 
of  expression.  The  following  summary  will,  however,  give  an  approximate  idea  of 
their  import  upon  constitutional  questions  :  Of  448  primary  and  secondary  cahiers  ex¬ 
amined,  305  demanded  or  implied  a  constitution;  194,  the  monarchy;  401,  periodic 
fetats  g6n6raux;  372,  granting  of  taxes  by  the  fitats  g6n6raux  ;  269,  legislation  by  the 
£tats  g6n6raux ;  331,  ministerial  responsibility  ;  and  366,  proportional  taxation. 


CONSTITUTION 


35 

rights.'  The  cahiers,  it  must  be  remarked,  show  a  more  perfect 
and  uniform  programme  of  civil  reform  than  of  political. 

■  The  cahier  of  the  nobitity  of  the  bailliageof  Aumont  asked:  “  Que  I’ancienne  con¬ 
stitution  fran(;aise  est  monarchique,  que  les  lois  fondamentales  du  royaume  subsisteront 
dans  leur  integrity  et  qu’elles  ne  pourront  etre  changees  par  les  deputes  aux  Etats 
g6n6raux,  Que  la  formation  des  .^tats  generaux  fait  partie  de  la  constitution.”  .  .  . 

Arch.  Pari.,  i,  766.  Somewhat  similar  views  are  found  in  the  cahiers  of  the  clergy 
of  Lectoure,  Ibid.,  ii,  66 ;  of  the  clergy  of  Auten,  ii,  too;  of  the  clergy  of  Aval,  ii,  137  • 
of  the  clergy  of  Carcassonne,  ii,  257  ;  of  the  clergy  of  Blois,  ii,  376;  of  the  nobility  of 
Guyenne,  ii,  394;  of  the  clergy  of  Chalons-sur-Marne,  ii,  582;  of  the  clergy  of  Cler¬ 
mont-Ferrand,  ii,  766  ;  of  the  third  estate  of  Comte  de  Comminges,  iii,  26 ;  of  the 
nobility  of  Constances,  iii,  52 ;  of  the  clergy  of  Etampes,  iii,  279;  of  the  nobility  of 
Libourne,  iii,  506;  of  the  nobility  of  Timoux,  iii,  577;  of  the  nobility  of  Macon,  iii, 
623  ;  of  the  nobility  of  Gevaudan,  iii,  754 ;  of  the  third  estate  of  the  parish  of  Ferrifires 
en  Brie,  iv,  545  ;  of  the  nobility  of  Brovins  and  Monterau,  v,  448;  of  the  nobility  of 
Touraine,  vi,  39;  of  the  clergy  of  Vermandois,  vi,  134;  of  the  clergy  of  Villers- 
Catterels,  vi,  187;  of  the  clergy  of  Vitry  le  Francais,  vi,  207;  of  the  nobility  of 
Besan<;on,  vi,  516.  Some  wished  to  re-establish  in  more  definite  terms  the  old  con¬ 
stitution.  The  cahier  of  the  clergy  of  Auxerre  asked  :  “  Que  les  Etats  g6n6raux 
s’occuperont  d’abord  de  reconnaitre,  conserver,  fixer  irr^vocablement,  et  rendre  pub- 
liques  les  lois  constitutionnelles  de  la  monarchie,  les  droits  du  Roi  et  ceux  de  la  nation,” 
ii,  III.  Of  similar  import  were  the  cahiers  of  the  clergy  of  Argenois,  i,  675  ;  of  the 
third  estate  of  Albert,  i,  704;  of  the  third  estate  of  Alen^on,  i,  716  ;  of  the  third  estate 
of  Exemes,  i,  727  ;  of  the  nobility  of  Pont-i-Mousson,  ii,  229;  of  the  nobility  of  Cas- 
Ires,  ii,  566;  of  the  clergy  of  Caux,  ii,  573;  of  the  nobility  of  Caux,  ii,  575;  of  the 
nobility  of  Chalons-sur-Saone,  ii,  604;  of  the  clergy  of  Chateauneuf  en  Thimerais,  ii, 
639;  of  the  nobility  of  Launes,  iii,  94;  of  the  nobility  of  Evreux,  iii,  295;  of  the  third 
estate  of  Province  of  Forez,  iii,  385  ;  of  the  clergy  of  Pays  de  Labourt,  iii,  424;  of  the 
nobility  of  Montagres,  iv,  20 ;  of  the  Parish  of  Clermont-Mendon,  iv,  440;  of  the  third 
estate  of  Agenois,  i,  687.  A  smaller  number  of  the  cahiers  asked  for  a  new  consti¬ 
tution.  The  cahier  of  the  third  estate  of  Paris  intra  muros  presented  a  model  consti¬ 
tution,  essentially  similar  to  the  one  actually  framed,  v,  581.  The  Parish  of  Tous- 
susle  Noble,  of  Paris,  hors  des  murs,  instructed  that:  Les  deputes  demanderont  une 
nouvelle  constitution  nationale,  la  suppression  de  toutes  les  lois,  qui,  jusqii’  a  present, 
ont  6t6  consideries  constitutionnelles,  comme  illegalement  etablies  et  n’ayant  pas  re^u 
I’approbation  de  la  nation,  v,  138.  The  third  estate  of  Mont  de  Morsan  said:  II  est 
temps  qu’on  pose  les  regies  fixes,  et  qu’on  assure  ^  la  F'rance  une  Constitution  qni 
garantisse  les  droits  naturels  et  imprescriptibles  des  hommes,  iv,  34.  The  third  estate 
of  Etampes,  after  referring  to  the  abuses,  said :  Nos  premiers  voeux  doivent  naturelle- 
ment  se  porter  sur  ce  qui  doit  former  I’avenir  la  constitution  du  royaume.  Le  an- 
ciens  monuments  nous  offrent  si  peu  de  conformity  et  de  certitude,  que  nous  devons 
profiter  deslumi^res  actuelles  pour  op^rer  un  plus  grand  bien,  iii,  283.  The  nobility 
of  Blois  said :  Le  malheur  de  la  France  vient  de  ce  qu’elle  n’a  jamais  eu  de  consti¬ 
tution  fixe,  ii,  379. 


34 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


The  pamphlets  of  the  day,  being  the  expression  of  the  convic¬ 
tions  of  individuals,  reveal  more  clearly  the  political  thought  of 
the  radical  element.  Count  de  Mirabean’s  Letires  de  cachet,  pub¬ 
lished  in  1783,  may  be  regarded  as  among  the  earliest  of  such 
personal  expressions.  Its  attitude  was  rather  negative  than  con¬ 
structive.  It  attempted  to  show  that  a  despotism  depended  not  at 
all  upon  the  character  of  the  particular  sovereign,  but  on  the 
absence  or  insufficiency  of  laws;  that  France  without  a  veritable 
constitution  was  only  a  despotic  state,  and  that  there  is  no  mean 
between  an  absolute  despotism  and  the  absolute  reign  of  law.* 
In  1787,  the  Count  declared,  “What  is  necessary  is  a  constitu¬ 
tion;  France  is  ripe  for  the  Revolution.’’  ’ 

Other  pamphlets  of  1788  and  1789  indicate  a  tendency  to  discuss 
constitutional  law  from  the  historical  and  crudely  comparative 
standpoint,  and  to  apply  the  conclu.sions  to  the  present  conditions, 
but  in  the  attempt  to  formulate  their  results,  they  are  less  clear 
and  coherent.  One  of  the.se  drawn  up  in  1789  devotes  one  hun¬ 
dred  and  thirty-seven  pages  to  the  discussion  of  the  influence  of 
Montesquieu  in  the  pre.sent  Revolution,  and  denounces  him  for 
not  dec  aring  boldly  that  France  was  a  despotism.  It  concluded 
that  France  has  in  reality  no  constitution.’ 

How  far  the  king  meant  that  the  States-General  should  possess 
a  constitutional  character  is  difficult  to  determine.  The  Letter  of 
Summons  repeatedly  asserts  the  desire  to  affect  a  “fixed  and  con- 
.stant  order  in  all  parts  of  the  administration.’’  *  Mirabeau  claimed 
that  the  king  himself  had  recognized  “the  necessity  of  giving 

*  Roequain,  L’ Esprit,  405,  406;  Lettres  de  cachet,  ch.  viii,  edition  of  1820. 

’  Cited  in  Roequain,  L' Esprit,  457. 

*  Qu'est  ce  que  done  qu’une  Constitution,  si  ce  n’est  I’ordre,  la  distribution  des  deux 
grands  pnuvoirs  politiques  et  de  leur  separation  dans  difierentes  mains,  et  leur  exercise 
ou  differentes  formes  :  le  tout  sanctionne  et  constitue,  cest  k  dire  statue  avec  la  nation 
a.ssemblee,  representant  regalement  la  volonte  geiierale,  et  voulant  librenient  pour 
I’interet  commun  ?  Si  Ton  recherche  en  France  ces  deux  pouvoirs,  ou  les  trouve,  par 
le  fait,  reunis  dans  la  meme  main,  sans  qu'on  puisse  voir  I’apparence  d’un  droit  con- 
traire  qu'en  remontant  vers  les  ages  tenebreux  de  I’ignorance  et  de  la  servitude.  Or 
la  collection  de  ces  pouvoirs  ne  peut  former  que  I’autorite  arbitraire  d’un  despote;  ce 
qui  exclut  toute  idee  de  Lois  fondamentales  et  constitutionnelles :  aussi  n’en  trouve-t- 
on  en  assume.  Done  point  de  Constitution,  Vol.  87  of  Fr.  Rev.  Col,  of  Penn. 
Hist.  Soc.,  114,  1 1 5. 

^  Arch.  Pari.,  i,  513,  544. 


CONSTITUl  ION 


35 


France  a  fixed  method  of  government,”  ‘  and  La  Marck  confirmed 
this  declaration.’  We  shall  perhaps  have  attributed  sufficient 
meaning  to  these  hazy  avowals  if  we  say  that  Louis  XVI.,  partly 
from  his  paternal  spirit,  and  partly  from  a  desire  for  relief  from 
financial  crises,  meditated,  in  his  more  liberal  moods,  granting  the 
nation  some  sort  of  a  charier,  in  the  formulation  of  which  he 
wished  the  assistance  of  the  States-General.  This  resuscitated 
institution  convened  at  Versailles,  May  5,  1789. 

The  first  months  were  occupied  in  the  disputes  over  the  verifi¬ 
cation  of  the  powers  of  the  deputies.  On  May  28,  a  representative 
of  the  nobility,  Count  de  Crillon,  said  that  ‘‘he  was  of  the  firm 
opinion  that  it  was  less  for  maintaining  than  for  establishing  the 
Constitution  that  they  were  called  together.”  ’  On  June  15,  Abbe 
Siey^s  announced  that  those  whose  powers  had  been  verified  rep¬ 
resented  ninety-six  per  cent,  of  the  nation,  and  suggested  as  a 
fitting  name,  "Assentblee  des  representants."  Mirabeau,  at  the 
same  session,  offered  a  series  of  resolutions  that  provoked  much 
discussion,  one  of  which  affirmed  that  their  first  duty  was  “to 
agree  upon  and  to  fix  legally  the  principles  for  the  regeneration  of 
the  kingdom,  to  assure  the  rights  of  the  people,  to  adopt  the  basis 
of  a  wise  and  useful  constitution,  and,  to  .secure  these  rights  from 
all  attempts,  they  shall  be  put  under  the  safeguard  of  the  legi.sla- 
tive  power  of  the  king  and  of  the  National  Assembly.”  Rabaudde 
Saint  Etienne,  in  another  series  of  resolutions,  expre.ssed  the  same 
conviction.*  Two  days  later,  the  name  ‘‘National  Assembly” 
was  adopted  and  an  oath  taken  ‘‘  to  fulfill  w'ith  zeal  and  fidelity 
the  duties  which  devolve  upon  us.”^  Debarred  from  the  place 
usually  occupi  d  by  the  Assembly  by  the  carpenters  who  w'ere  at 
work  upon  it,  the  members  of  the  third  estate  held  their  meeting, 

*  Hist.  Pari.,  i,  445. 

’  He  said  of  Mirabeau  :  “  Nous  n’avons  I’un  et  I’autre  enlrevu  riende  mieux  pour 
la  France  qu’un  gouvernement  monarchique  constilutioiinel.  De  If  us  les  rois,  I.ouis 
XVI.  6tait  le  plus  propre  i  rfisondre  le  problSnie.  ...  II  croyait  le  gouvernemer.t 
conslilutionnel  plus  convenable,  et  il  le  ddsirait ;  et  je  puis  le  dire  avec  autani  de  ctr- 
titude  que  conviction,  la  reine  partageait  4  cet  6gard  les  opinions  et  les  penchants  de 
Louis  XVI.;  les  materiaux  qui  sont  dans  nion  portefeuille  rendent  ces  assertions  inct  O- 
testables.”  Correspont/ence  entre  Mirabeau  et  La  Marck,  i,  67,  95. 

^  Arch.  Pari.,  viii,  55. 

^  Ibid.,  1 13. 

*  Ibid.,  127. 


THE  FIRS7  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


36 

June  20,  in  the  Tennis  Court  at  Versailles,  and  there  adopted  the 
resolution  which  declared  the  National  Assembly  a  Constitutional 
Convention,  and  subscribed  to  the  following,  known  as  the  Tennis 
Court  Oath  :  “  The  National  Assembly,  regarding  itself  as  called 
upon  to  establish  the  Constitution  of  the  kingdom,  effect  a  regen¬ 
eration  of  the  state  and  maintain  the  true  principles  of  the  mon¬ 
archy,  may  not  be  prevented  from  continuing  its  deliberations  in 
whatever  place  it  may  be  forced  to  take  up  its  sittings.  It  further 
maintains  that  wherever  its  members  are  assembled,  there  is  the 
National  Assembly.  The  Assembly  decrees  that  all  its  members 
shall  immediately  take  a  solemn  oath  never  to  be  dissolved  and 
to  come  together  whenever  circumstances  may  dictate,  until  the 
Constitution  of  the  kingdom  shall  be  established  and  placed  upon 
a  firm  foundation.”*  It  is  beyond  the  sphere  of  our  inquiry  to 
follow  this  Constituent  Assembly  in  their  arduous  and  complex 
task  of  formulating  a  constitution,  and  of  legislating  at  the  same 
time  for  the  kingdom,  while  exposed  to  court  intrigues  and  popu¬ 
lar  intrusion. 

Therefore,  to  conclude  this  chapter  as  we  began,  we  have  shown 
that  the  resolution  of  June  20  was  neither  a  political  freak,  nor  an 
act  of  imitation  of  a  foreign  nation.  The  example  of  the  Ameri¬ 
can  Republic  may  have  given  stimulus  and  precision,  yet  the 
Tennis  Court  Oath  must  be  regarded  as  the  logical  consequence 
of  a  transformation,  which  had  been  in  progress  for  more  than 
sixty  years. 


Arch.  Pari.,  viii,  138. 


/ 


THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  REPUBLIC. 

Louis  XVI.,  in  1789,  was  praised  by  the  mass  of  the  French 
nation  as  the  best  of  monarchs,  and  as  the  restorer  of  national 
liberties;  his  name  was  coupled  with  that  of  Henry  IV,  a  king  about 
whom  tradition  had  thrown  a  halo  of  glory.  But,  on  September 
21,  1792,  the  newly-chosen  Convention  abolished  the  monarchy. 
So  rapid  is  the  transition  from  the  one  phase  of  the  national  feel¬ 
ing  to  the  other,  that  it  occasions  a  surmise  either  that  the  pro¬ 
fessed  loyalty  to  the  monarch  in  1789  was  not  sincere,  or  that  the 
action  of  the  Convention  was  the  work  of  a  coterie  of  radicals,  who 
misrepresented  the  popular  feeling.  A  review  of  the  period  in¬ 
tervening  between  1789  and  1792  shows  that  both  of  these  suppo¬ 
sitions  are  unwarranted,  and  confirms  the  conclusion  that  there 
was  a  progressive  development  of  hostility,  first  to  Louis  XVI. 
and  the  royal  family,  and  then  to  the  monarchical  government. 

Previous  to  1789,  the  term  Republic  is  used  by  French  publicists 
or  agitators,  but  it  is  either  in  a  sense  so  qualified  as  to  be  consist¬ 
ent  with  the  monarchy,  or  as  a  form  of  government  unsuited  to 
France  with  its  actual  traditions  and  conditions.*  The  very  nearly 
unanimous  feeling  and  judgment  in  1789  w’as  that  the  monarchy 
was  the  best  form  of  government  for  France,  and  that  the  chief 
need  was  to  regenerate  it.  We  have  said  that  one  hundred  and 

*  D’Argenson  in  1752  said:  “Quant  i  moi  je  tiens  pour  I’av^nement  du  second 
article  et  mfeme  du  rfepublicanisme.”  He  meant  Republicanism  not  in  the  modern 
sense,  but  in  the  sense  of  a  monarchy  with  democratic  local  institutions.  Aubertin, 
V Esprit  ptiblic,  278,  279.  Even  the  Esprit  des  Lois  gave  some  sanction  to  a 
Republic  as  an  ideal  form  of  government  when  it  recognized  virtue  as  t  he  temper  of 
society  required  for  this  form  of  government.  Voltaire,  friend  of  the  nnonarchy  and 
critic  of  Rousseau  as  he  was,  wrote :  “  Le  plus  tolerable  des  gouverne.’ments  est  le 
ripublicain,  parce.que  c’est  celui  qui  rapproche  le  plus  les  hommes  de  I’^galitS  natur- 
elle.”  He  also  compared  the  frequency  of  crimes  under  a  monarchy  with  their  infre¬ 
quency  under  republics.  Martin,  Histoire  de  France,  xvi,  136.  Mably  held  that 
France  should  pass  by  degrees  from  a  monarchy  to  a  republic.  Ibid.,  149  et  seq., 
Cerutti,  the  coadjutor  of  Mirabeau  at  a  later  date,  had  published  a  book  on  Republics. 
This  book  had  been  generally  attributed  to  Rousseau.  Dictionnaire  Universelle. 

(37) 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


38 

iiinet3"-fonr  cahicrs  specificallj’  asked  for  the  retention  of  the  mon¬ 
archy;  the  silence  of  the  others  upon  this  question  must  not  be 
construed  to  mean  that  their  authors  were  indifferent  or  opposed 
to  the  monarchy,  but  rather  that  they  believed  it  unnecessary  to 
ask  for  w'hat  they  already  had,  and  against  which  there  was  no 
strong  movement.  As  Paris  maj’’  rightly  be  considered  the  source 
of  the  anti-inonarchical  agitation,  the  attitude  of  the  third  estate 
in  this  city  at  the  opening  of  the  Revolution  may  justly  be  taken 
to  represent  the  feeling  of  the  radical  element  toward  the  monar¬ 
chy.  In  their  cahier  they  said:  “In  the  French  monarchy,  the 
legislative  power  belongs  to  the  nation  conjointly  with  the  king; 
to  the  king  alone  belongs  the  executive  power.’’ '  The  sub-cahiers 
from  the  districts  of  the  city  expressed  the  same  idea.’  lu  truth, 
in  not  a  single  ra/zzVr  examined  do  we  find  a  hint  of  any  opposition 
to  the  monarchy.  Hence,  it  is  to  be  inferred  that,  if  any  individ¬ 
uals  had  Republican  inclinations,  these  inclinations  were  not  shared 
by  any  appreciable  part  of  the  nation.  A  few  men  of  the  reform 
party,  Lauragnais,  Lally-Tollendal,  and  Montlosier,  ventured  to 
say  that  the  French  monarchy  had  originally  been  elective  and 
that  the  elective  monarchy  would  consequently  be  not  an  innova- 

*  Arch.  Pan.,  v,  282. 

^  The  cahier  of  the  district  of  Abbey  Saint  Germain  desPr^s  said:  II  sera  arrel6 
qu’h  la  nation  assemblee,  r6unie  au  Roi,  appartient  le  droit  de  faire  les  lois  de  royaumei 
Arch.  Pari.,  v,  306;  that  of  Saint  Gervais  :  Le  pouvoir  ligislatif  appartient  conjointe- 
ment  au  Roi  et  a  la  nation.  .  .  .  Le  pouvoir  ex6cutif  appartient  au  Roi,  comme 

chef  supreme  et  premier  magistrat  de  la  nation.  Ibid.,  308;  that  of  Saint  Louis  de-la. 
Culture:  Qu’il  soit  reconnu  que  I’etat  est  monarchique,  que  la  couronne  est  h6r6ditaire 
en  ligne  masculine,  etc.,  AJzV.,  31 1  ;  that  of  Theatins:  Le  Roi  en  (of  the  army) 
aura  la  discipline  et  le  commandement  general,  Ibid.,  316;  that  of  Sorbonne : 
that  the  States-General  and  the  king  jointly  make  the  laws;  that  of  Filles  de  Sainf 
Thomas :  that  the  nation  and  the  king  make  the  laws,  and  that  the  executive  power 
be  guaranteed  to  the  king  and  to  the  reigning  family  without  restriction  or  division  ; 
that  of  Bonn?  Nouvelle :  that  the  laws  should  be  made  by  the  States-General  and 
announced  by  the  king ;  that  of  Saint  Joseph  Quartier  des  Halles :  that  laws  be  made 
by  the  nation  and  king  jointly;  that  of  Sainte  Elizabeth  :  that  the  nation  make  the 
laws  and  the  king  sanction  them  ;  that  of  Enfants  Rouges :  that  the  laws  be  made  by 
the  nation  arid  the  king  jointly;  that  of  Blancs  Manteaux  :'  that  France  should  have 
an  hereditary'  monarchy  in  the  male  line  of  the  reigning  house,  laws  made  by  the 
nation  and  s^mctioned  by  the  king,  and  that  the  executive  power  should  belong  to  the 
monarch  ;  tbiat  of  Capucins  du  Marais  :  that  the  laws  be  made  by  the  nation  and  the 
king  jointly  ;  that  of  Minimes  de  la  Place  Royale  :  that  the  laws  be  made  jointly  by 
the  nation  ;and  the  king.  Chassin,  Les  Election  et  Cahiers  de  Paris,  ii,  ch.  xvi-xviii. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  REPUBLIC 


39 


tion,  but  a  restoration  of  their  earlj^  system;'  but  the  adherence 
of  these  men  to  the  monarchy  in  the  early  days  of  the  Constituent 
Assembly  is  conclusive  that  by  the  elective  monarchy  they  did  not 
not  mean  the  Republic  of  1792. 

The  Constituent  Assembly,  having  been  formed  out  of  the 
States-General,  had  to  formulate  a  constitution  for  the  regenera¬ 
tion  of  France,  and  was  obliged,  therefore,  to  specify  the  divisions 
of  government,  designate  the  organs  and  the  functions  of  each  di¬ 
vision,  prescribe  their  powers,  limitations,  sources  and  transmission; 
hence  the  debates  and  decrees  of  this  national  body  may  be  taken 
as  indicative  of  the  public  sentiment  tow’ard  the  monarch.  Here 
may  be  traced  the  changes  worked  in  the  public  mind,  the  censure 
or  the  eulogy  of  persons  and  institutions.  As  this  national  assem¬ 
bly  itself  became  transformed  by  the  withdrawal  of  the  more  con¬ 
servative  elements,  it  reflected  rather  faithfully  the  change  that 
was  taking  place  in  the  minds  of  the  radical  classes  of  France. 

This  Assembly  frequently  gave  expression  of  its  satisfaction 
with  the  monarch  and  with  the  monarchy.  Near  the  close  of  the 
famous  session  of  August  4,  1789,  when  feudalism  had  been  so 
enthusiastically  renounced  by  its  own  favored  sons,  M.  Lally- 
Tollendal  proposed  that  they  should  proclaim  “Louis  XVI.  the 
Restorer  of  French  liberty.’’  “The  proclamation,’’  we  are  told, 
“  was  made  immediately  by  the  deputies,  by  the  people,  and  by  all 
those  who  were  present,  and  the  National  Assembly  resounded 
for  a  quarter  of  an  hour  with  the  cries  ‘  Vive  le  roi ;  vive  Louis 
XVI.,  restaitratetir  de  la  liberte  fran(aise.'  ’’  As  early  as  July  4, 
1789,  Gouverneur  Morris,  a  careful  observer  of  the  French  spirit 
and  movements,  wrote:  “  They  wish  an  American  Constitution, 
with  a  king  in  the  place  of  a  president.’’  ’  On  August  28,  1789, 
Mouuier  presented  a  project  of  the  monarchical  element  of  the 
Constitution,  and  a  member  made  the  following  statement,  the 
verity  of  w’hich  was  not  disputed:  “  Here  we  should  reflect  upon 
the  national  spirit.  For  fourteen  centuries  the  French,  free  to 
direct  themselves  by  the  republican  spirit,  preferred  the  peaceful¬ 
ness  of  the  monarchic  government  to  the  storms  of  a  republican 
government.  .  .  .  Louis  XVI.  is  no  more  upon  the  throne  by  the 

•  Chassin,  Les  Elections  et  Cakiers,  i,  453. 

'Arch.  Pari.,  viii,  350. 

•  Quoted  in  A.  Saint  Girons,  Droit,  public  francais,  129. 


40 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  BE  PUBLIC 


chance  of  birth,  he  is  there  by  the  choice  of  the  nation;  it  has 
raised  him  there,  as  formerly  our  brave  ancestors  raised  Phara- 
mond  upon  the  shield.  No  one  contests  the  monarchical  govern¬ 
ment.  All  the  cahiers  are  certainly  clear  .  .  .  we  cannot  avoid  the 
conclusion,  the  only  government  which  is  suitable  to  our  manners 
{vioetirs),  to  our  climate,  to  the  extent  of  our  provinces,  is  the 
monarchical  government.”*  Other  speeches  made  on  the  same 
occasion  are  indicative  of  the  strong  monarchical  spirit  that  pos¬ 
sessed  the  Assembly  at  this  stage  of  its  history. 

Twenty  days  later,  M.  de  Baron  de  Juigne  proposed  to  conse¬ 
crate  the  principles  of  the  heredity  of  the  crown  and  the  inviola¬ 
bility  of  the  king’s  person.  Scarcely  were  these  principles  an¬ 
nounced,  than  the  Assembly  proclaimed  them  by  an  unanimous 
movement.’  These  principles  were  embodied  in  the  decree  of 
September  17,  1789.’ 

From  these  citations,  we  are  warranted  in  the  inference  that  the 
members  of  the  Constituent  Assembly  in  its  earlier  period  re¬ 
garded  the  monarchy  as  the  natural  and  the  most  suitable  form 
of  government  for  France.  On  the  question  of  the  division  of 
powers,  the  number  of  chambers,  the  elective  or  hereditary  king- 
ship,  the  absolute  or  limited  veto,  there  were  differences  of  opinion; 
but  national  tradition  and  personal  attachment  to  Louis  XVI. 
were  of  sufficient  force  to  bar  any  discussion  of  other  possible 
forms  for  the  executive  branch. 

The  first  strong  manifestation  of  personal  displeasure  toward 
the  king  reflected  in  the  Assembly,  was  aroused  by  his  attempt  to 
escape  from  the  country  with  the  ro}^al  family,  on  June  20  and  21, 
1791.  Fearing  to  be  held  longer  as  a  hostage  by  the  revolutionary 
party  and  to  be  supplanted  by  the  invading  emigres,  the  king 
with  his  family  sought  to  reach  the  eastern  frontier  and  there  to 
be  free  to  act  independently  of  both  factions;  but  at  Varennes 
he  was  arrested  and  brought  back  to  face  the  enraged  Paris¬ 
ians.  It  is  then  that  words  of  displeasure  were  first  heard  in  the 
Assembly.  What  shall  be  done  with  the  royal  fugitive?  was  then 
the  living  question.  Some  contended  that  he  was  inviolable  and 
could  not  be  called  to  account;  others,  that  his  inviolability  ex¬ 
tended  only  to  public  actions,  not  to  private;  while  still  others 


Arch.  Pari.,  viii,  505. 
^  Ibid.,  642. 


®  Ibid.,  ix,  26. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  REPUBLIC 


41 


maintained  that  he  had,  by  his  treason,  forfeited  his  inviolability. 
The  agitation  which  reigned  without  found  some  expression 
within  the  Assembly.  A  committee  reported,  July  13,  that  the 
flight  of  the  king  was  not  a  constitutional  offense,  that  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  inviolability  did  not  permit  Louis  XVI.  to  be  put  on  trial. 
For  three  days  the  discussion  over  the  king’s  inviolability  was 
carried  on.  Petion,  Putraink,  Vadier,  Robespierre,  Prieur,  Gre- 
goire,  Buzot  spoke  again.st,  and  Larochefoucault,  Liancourt, 
Prugnou,  Duport,  Goupil  de  Prefeln,  Salles  and  Barnave  for  the 
inviolability.  Only  Condorcet  attempted  to  show  the  fitness  of 
France  for  a  Republic.'  The  people  were  astir  without ;  they  met 
on  the  squares,  in  the  public  places,  crowded  around  the  Assembly, 
and  urged  the  dethronement  of  the  king  or  the  reference  of  the 
<juestion  to  the  people  of  the  eighty- three  departments.  Petitions, 
posters,  and  ardent  declamations  were  instruments  by  w’hich  the 
radicals  sought  to  turn  public  opinion  their  way.’  On  July  16, 
1791,  a  decree  of  the  Assembly  defined  the  acts  whereby  the  king 
should  be  considered  as  no  longer  inviolable.  Should  he,  having 
taken  the  oath  to  the  Constitution,  violate  it:  or  should  he  put 
himself  at  the  head  of  an  arni)'  against  the  nation,  or  should  he 
fail  to  oppose  such  an  act  on  the  part  of  his  generals,  he  should 
be  considered  to  have  abdicated,  and  might  be  brought  to  trial 
like  any  ordinary  citizen.  His  executive  functions,  suspended 
June  25,  were  not  to  be  restored  till  the  completion  of  the  Consti¬ 
tution.’  I 

The  Constitution  was  completed  and  reviewed,  and  on  Septem¬ 
ber  14,  1791,  the  king  went  to  the  Constituent  Assembly,  accepted  j 
the  Constitution,  and,  amid  prolonged  applause,  subscribed  to  this  ) 
new  instrument  that  was  to  give  liberty  to  France.  He  was 
escorted  back  to  the  Tuileries  by  the  entire  A.ssembly.  The  flight 
of  the  monarch  seemed  forgotten  or  forgiven.* 

On  September  30th,  the  monarch  made  the  closing  speech  to 
the  Assembly  and  was  greeted  with  repeated  shouts  of  Vive  le  Roi. 
The  President  responded  to  the  royal  speech  by  an  eulog}^  upon 
the  monarch  and  a  compliment  upon  the  form  of  government  in- 

>  Arch  Pari.,  xxviii,  336-338. 

’  Hist.  Pari.,  x,  449  et  seq.,  and  xi,  20  et  seq. 

^  Arch.  Pari.,  xxviii,  377. 

*  Ibid.,  XXX,  635,  636. 


42 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


augurated  under  the  Constitution.’  Though  the  Constituent 
Assembly  had  not  laid  sacrilegious  hands  upon  the  time-honored 
monarchy  of  France  further  than  to  divest  it  of  some  of  its  privi¬ 
leges  and  prerogatives,  though  the  storm  of  displeasure,  incurred 
bj’  the  ill-advised  flight  of  June  20th,  had  apparently  subsided  and 
the  Assemblj'  and  the  king  had  exchanged  expressions  of  mutual 
esteem,  and  had  sworn  to  preserve  the  great  document  so  labori¬ 
ously  wrought  out  by  the  French  Lycurguses,  yet  the  leaven  had 
been  engendered  which,  under  favorable  circumstances,  would 
leaven  the  whole  lump  and  transform  the  limited  monarchy  into 
a  republic.  Ideas  have  their  origin  in  individual  minds,  are  ad¬ 
vocated  by  these  individuals,  and  by  and  by  the  nucleus  of  devo¬ 
tees  has  grown  into  a  party  that  serves  as  an  organ  of  propagation 
and  makes  use  of  the  instrumentalities  of  their  age  for  the  dissem¬ 
ination  of  their  views  and  for  the  moulding  of  public  opinion  into 
conformity  thereto.  If  the  conditions  are  favorable,  the  new  ideas 
secure  acceptance  and  are  embodied  in  institutions  ;  but  if  the 
conditions  are  hostile,  the  conceptions  are  rejected  and  relegated 
to  that  vast  repository  where  are  accumulated  the  world’s  Utopias; 
thence  some  ardent  soul  may  bring  forward  the  idea  at  a  time 
which  is  propitious,  and  the  Utopia  may  become  a  practical  real¬ 
ity.  It  is  our  task  to  endeavor  to  discover  the  notion  of  a  repub¬ 
lic  for  France  as  it  was  conceived  and  promulgated  by  those  indi¬ 
viduals  who  may  be  called  the  precursors  of  French  republicanism, 
to  trace  the  formation  of  an  organic  body  for  its  promulgation, 
and  to  find  the  means  used  in  the  formation  of  a  public  opinion 
sufiiciently  strong  to  secure  the  adoption  of  the  Republic  of  1792. 

There  were  already  in  1789  a  few  ardent  natures  enthusiastic 
over  the  transformation  to  be  wrought  in  France,  who  harbored  a 
vague  desire  to  see  the  monarchy  abolished  and  a  more  liberal 
government  instituted.  Whence  had  come  this  hazy  notion  which 
wrought  up  their  feelings  may  only  be  conjectured.  Perhaps  the 

*  “  Convaincue  que  le  gouvernement  qui  convient  le  niieux  aux  prerogatives  respect¬ 
ables  du  tr6ne  avec  les  droits  inalienables  du  peuple,  elle  a  done  i  I’Etat  une  consti¬ 
tution  qui  garantit  egalement  et  la  royauie  et  la  liberte  Rationale.  .  .  .  Et  vous, 

Sire,  deji  vous  avez  presque  tout  fait.  Votre  Majeste  a  fini  la  Revolution  par  Son 
acceptation  si  loyale  et  si  franche  de  la  Constitution.  Elle  a  porte  au  dehors  le 
decouragement,  ramene  au  dedans  la  confiance,  rdtabli  par  elle  le  principal  nerf  du 
gouvernement  et  prepare  I’ulile  aclivite  de  I’administration.”  Arch,  Pari.,  xxxi 
688,  689. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  REPUBLIC 


43 


classic  studies  upon  which  the  Jesuits  and  Oratorians  nourished 
their  pupils  had  made  them  familiar  with  the  Greek  and  Roman 
Republics.*  Either  the  Social  Contract,  or  the  example  of  the 
American  colonies,  may  have  given  them  their  republican  notions. 

Camille  Desmoulins,  an  ardent,  impetuous  son  of  liberty,  gave 
unequivocal  expression  of  republican  sentiments  as  early  as  1789, 
and  even  asserted  that  the  republican  form  of  government  was  best 
suited  for  France.’  In  May,  1793,  in  two  addresses,  made  in  an¬ 
swer  to  Brissot,  he  confirms  his  early  preference  for  republicanism. 
He  said;  “  In  the  month  of  July,  1789,  the  number  of  Republicans 
in  Paris  did  not  probably  exceed  ten;  and  this  it  is  which  crowns 
with  eternal  glory  those  old  members  of  the  Club  of  Cordeliers, 
who  began  building  the  edifice  of  the  republic  with  such  slight 
materials.”’  In  June,  1790,  he  used  the  term  Congress  of  the 
Republic  of  France  in  speaking  of  the  Constituent  Assembly, 
and  said  that  only  four  republicans  had  had  the  courage  to  resist 
the  royal  budget  of  25,000,000  voted  upon  in  the  Assembly. 
Again  in  the  Jacobin  Club,  October  21,  1791,  at  the  time  wheu 
France  was  big  with  hope  that  the  new  Constitution  would  work, 
Desmoulins  pointed  out  its  imperfections  and  favored  republican  in¬ 
stitutions.  Here  then  was  one  mind  already  thinking  of  a  republic 


'  It  is  noteworthy  that  the  French  had  not  followed  the  history  of  their  own  devel¬ 
opment.  “  Pendant  toute  la  dur^e  de  la  monarchie,  tandis  que  le  peuple  n’apprenait 
presque  rien  les  hautes  classes,  en  general,  apprenaient  mal.  Leur  ignorance  de 
I’histoire  nationale  explique  pourquoi,  au  moment  de  la  Revolution,  on  ne  put  se 
rendre  un  compte  exact  des  fails  sociaux  et  politiques  que  nous  leguait  I’ancien  regime, 
pourquoi  on  detruisit  pele-mele  ce  qu’il  y  avail  de  bon  et  de  mauvais  dans  les  institu¬ 
tions  du  passe,  pourquoi,  lorsqu’il  s’agit  de  constituer  une  nation  moderne,  le  nation 
francaise,  on  n'eut  a.  la  bouche  que  des  exemples  empruntes  it  I’antiquite,  a  Athenes,  i 
Sparte,  i  Rome.  Cette  instruction  incomplete,  cette  fausse  education  classique  etait,  en 
somme,  une  mediocre  preparation  au  metier  de  legislateurs,  si  nouveau  pour  nos  peres 
de  la  Revolution.”  M.  Alfred  Rambaud,  Histoire  de  la  Civilisation  fravfaise,  ii, 
280.  An  English  lady  who  was  traveling  in  France  writes  in  August,  1792:  “Their 
studies  are  chiefly  confined  to  Rollin  and  Plutarch,  the  deistical  works  of  Voltaire  and 
the  visionary  politics  of  Jean  Jacques.  Hence  they  amuse  their  hearers  with  allusions 
to  Cassar  and  Lycurgus,  the  Rubicon  and  Thermopylae.  Hence  they  pretend  to  be 
too  enlightened  for  belief,  and  despise  all  governments  not  founded  on  the  contrat 
social  or  the  profession  de  foi.  .  .  .  They  talk  familiarly  of  Sparta  and  Lace- 

demon.”  A  Residence  in  France  during  ijgB-gg,  London,  1797. 

*  La  France  Libre,  1789,  60-61  pp. 

*  Collection  of  Pamphlets  in  Columbia  Library,  94404,  Book  M,  292. 


44 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


and  claiming  that  in  the  Cordelier  Club  there  were  others  who,  at 
that  early  period,  shared  his  opinions.  Who  these  were  he  does 
not  say.'  The  district  of  the  city  called  the  Cordeliers  had 
formed  a  popular  society  which  manifested  a  severely  critical 
spirit  toward  the  monarchical  and  aristocratic  legislation.  This 
district  clamored  for  liberty  of  the  press,'  and  championed  the 
political  rights  of  passive  citizens.®  It  took  the  side  of  the  sixty  dis¬ 
tricts  which  kept  up  their  popular  electoral  assemblies  and  which 
continued  to  meet  in  the  interim  of  elections,  as  against  the 
forty-eight  sections,  which  convened  only  for  elections.  The 
ardent  opposition  of  the  Cordeliers  to  the  Assembly  and  to  the 
municipality  doubtless  provoked  the  enactment  of  the  law  which, 
on  May  27,  1790,  transformed  these  districts  into  the  sections.* 
Then  forming  the  Club  of  Cordeliers^  the  Society  of  the  Rights  of 
Mayi  and  of  Citizens,  this  district  continued  its  policy  of  aggres¬ 
sion  upon  the  conservatives,  until  their  more  democratic  pro¬ 
gramme  became  an  accomplished  fact.  Here  then  was  a  company 
of  men,  having  a  common  interest  in  extreme  radicalism,  meeting 
frequently  and  fanning  into  fuller  heat  by  their  addresses  the 
embers  of  opposition.  This  society,  anti-aristocratic,  anti-mon¬ 
archical,  occasionally  uttered  republican  sentiments  and  indulged 
in  the  word  republic.  They  remarked  the  inconsistency  between 
the  principles  contained  in  the  Declaration  of  the  Rights  of  Man 
and  an  hereditary  monarchy,  resting  upon  the  divine  right  of 

•  Camille  Desmoulins’  La  France  Libre  contained  three  striking  utterances. 
“  For  forty  years  philosophy  had  undermined  all  the  parts  of  the  foundations  of  des¬ 
potism  ;  and  as  Rome  before  Caesar  was  already  enslaved  by  its  vices,  France  before 
Necker  was  already  freed  by  its  intelligence,”  56.  In  various  parts  of  this  article  of 
1789  he  speaks  of  a  republic  as  being  the  best  suited  to  France.  “  Before  the  Royal 
Sitting  I  regarded  Louis  XVI.  with  admiration,  for  he  had  some  virtues,  as  he  walked 
not  at  all  in  the  steps  of  his  fathers,  was  not  at  all  a  despot,  and  had  convoked  the 
States- General.  While  in  the  province  I  read  in  the  his  beautiful  speech : 

‘  What  does  it  matter  that  my  authority  suffer  provided  my  people  should  be  happy  ?’ 
We  have,  I  said  to  myself,  a  greater  king  than  the  Trojans,  the  Marcus  Aurelius,  the 
Antonines,  who  did  not  at  all  limit  their  power.  Personally  I  loved  Louis  XVI. ; 
but  the  monarchy  was  not  less  odious,”  60-61.  “  I  declare  then  boldly  for  dem¬ 

ocracy,”  64. 

’  Hist.  Pari.,  ii,  353,  and  iv,  295. 

^  Ibid.,  iii,  433. 

■*  Hist.  Gen.,  viii,  104. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  REPUBLIC 


45 


kings.*  On  June  22,  1791,  the  Club  of  Cordeliers  issued  an  ad¬ 
dress  to  the  Assembly  showing  its  republican  proclivities,  much 
to  the  displeasure  of  the  Jacobins.  They  said:  “We  conjure  you, 
in  the  name  of  the  country,  either  to  declare  immediately  that 
France  is  no  more  a  monarchy,  that  it  is  a  republic,  or  at  least  to 
wait  until  all  the  departments,  until  all  the  primary  assemblies, 
have  expressed  their  wish  upon  this  important  question,  before 
thinking  of  replacing  a  second  time  the  most  fair  Empire  of  the 
world  in  chains  and  in  the  limits  of  monarchism.’’  ^  The  flight  of 
the  king  was  the  occasion  that  called  for  this  expression  of  ani¬ 
mosity  to  the  monarchy  and  the  preference  for  a  republic.  Even 
before  the  attempted  escape,  another  newspaper  had  joined  with 
Desmoulins  in  his  strong  anti-monarchical  views  and  in  the  sug¬ 
gestion  of  a  more  suitable  form  of  government  for  France.  Prud- 
homme,  the  publisher  of  booklets  and  pamphlets  of  the  liberal 
party  previous  to,  and  during  the  Revolution,  had  established  a 
paper  devoted  to  the  new  ideas,  the  Revolutions  de  Paris.  The 
experienced  publisher  had  discovered  the  practical  sagacity  and 
the  sincere  democratic  proclivities  of  a  young  advocate  from 
Bourdeaux,  recently  come  to  Paris,  Eoustallot,  who  had  already  in 
1789  proved  himself  a  good  pamphleteer  for  the  reformers.  These 
two  men  began  the  issue  of  their  sheet  July  12,  1789.  In  its  earlier 
numbers  the  slavery  of  the  Frenchmen  to  the  aristocracy  was  bit¬ 
terly  censured,  but  the  king  is  not  treated  so  much  with  hostility 
as  with  pity  for  his  weakness.^  Whether  Eoustallot  would  have 

‘See  Condorcet’s  speech  on  the  question  of  the  kingship,  July  15,  1791.  Arch. 
Pari.,  xviii,  33&-338. 

*  Hist.  Pari.,  x,  416-418.  It  seems  to  have  been  the  Cordeliers  who  planned  for 
the  public  signing  of  the  petition  upon  the  altar  of  the  country,  July  17,  1791,  on  the 
Champs  de  Mars.  This  petition  prayed  the  Assembly  to  accept  the  abdication  of  the 
king,  and  to  convoke  a  new  constituent  power  for  the  trial  of  the  guilty  and  for  the 
replacing  and  organization  of  a  new  executive  power.  Hist.  Gen.,  viii,  too ;  Hist. 
Pari.,  xi,  1 15.  Six  thousand  petitioners  had  signed  this  instrument. 

•Henry  Morse  Stephens,  The  French  Revolution,  \,  et  seq.  The  number  of 
February  4,  1790,  contained  these  words :  “  II  est  impossible  dans  de  pareils  moments 
de  se  livrer  ft  aucunes  reflexions:  il  faut  Stre  tout  i  sentir.  Nous  dirons  done  seulement 

’  9 

et  du  fond  du  coeur :  Puisse  cette  journee  etouffer  la  discorde  qui  r^gnoit  entre  les 
citoyens,  et  ramener  k  la  nation  ceux  qui  ne  vouloient  pas  reconnoitre  ses  droits:  Et 
nous,  patriotes,  faisons  au  bien  de  la  paix  tous  les  sacrifices  qui  peuvent  s’allier  avec 
la  liberte,  soyons  dignes  d’etre  fibres,  soyons  dignes  d’etre  les  sujets  d’un  tel  roi.’’ 
Rlv.  de  Paris,  Vol.  3,  No.  31.  In  referring  to  a  company  about  to  go  to  Ohio,  the 


46 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


continued  to  advocate  liberal  monarchical  views  had  he  lived/  we 
sliall  not  venture  to  say;  but  in  the  spring  of  1791/  the  paper  had 
changed  its  spirit  toward  the  king.  The  issue  of  April  21-30 
gave  notice  of  a  decree  proposed  to  the  National  Assembly  advo¬ 
cating  the  abolition  of  royalty.  After  citing  a  long  list  of  consid¬ 
erations,  chiefly  of  the  evils  of  kings  and  of  the  inconsistency  of 
such  an  institution  with  the  rights  of  vian,  twenty-one  articles 
were  given  proposing  the  abolition  of  royalty  and  the  substitution 
of  a  President."  Subsequent  numbers  continued  to  discuss  favor¬ 
ably  the  abolition  of  the  monarchy.  In  No.  91  a  letter  was  printed 
which  suggested  the  placing  of  a  ballot-box  in  each  of  the  churches 
to  receive  the  vote  of  the  people  upon  the  question  at  issue. 
The  writer  shows  himself  friendly  to  the  change.  Another 
friend  of  the  proposal,  in  a  letter  printed  in  No.  92,*  opposed  this 
mode  of  voting,  lest  the  monarchists  should  take  advantage  of  it. 
Instead,  he  proposed  that  the  vote  should  be  collected  viva  voce, 
a  list  made  of  those  voting  ;  this  list  should  be  sent  to  the  Assem¬ 
bly,  yet  care  should  be  taken  to  keep  a  duplicate  in  order  to  avoid 
any  surprise.  No.  96  contained  an  article  upon  “The  White 
Elephant,”  advocating,  in  a  facetious  manner,  similar  ideas.  The 
same  number  entered  into  an  examination  of  these  three  proposi¬ 
tions,  the  first  two  of  which  it  decided  affirmatively,  the  last  one 

editor  would  dissuade  them  by  saying :  “  Nous  allons  en  jouir  par  une  constitution 
plus  heureusement  concue  que  celle  des  Etats-Unis.”  Vol.  3,  No.  32.  In  No.  52  of 
July,  1790,  former  kings  are  calumniated  and  Louis  XVI.  was  praised.  The  last 
number  of  1790  paid  its  respects  to  the  king  in  laudable  terms.  “  Louis  tu  as  pris, 
comme  par  instinct,  le  parti  le  plus  sage.  Tu  as  cesse  d’etre  I’oint  du  Seigneur,  pour 
devenir  le  fils  ain6  de  la  patrie.  Notre  mfire  commune  t’a  confirme  dans  ta  place, 
la  lete  de  la  grande  famille.  Dis  n'est  il  pas  plus  doux  de  presider  des  frfires,  que  de 
fouler  aux  pieds  des  sujets?”  No.  77. 

'  He  died  September,  1790. 

’  March  26-April  2. 

*  I.  La  nation  ne  reconnolt  pour  chef  supreme  de  I’empire  que  le  president  de  son 
assembl6e  representative  et  permanente.  II.  On  ne  pourra  etre  eiu  president  avant 
ga  cinquantieme  annee,  ni  pour  plus  d’un  mois,  ni  plus  d’une  fois  en  sa  vie.  .  .  . 

XIX.  La  nation  supprime,  abolit  et  annulle  k  jamais  les  titres  de  roi,  de  reine,  de 
prince  du  sang  royal,  ces  mots  cesseront  d’avoir  un  sens  dans  la  langue  francaise.  .  . 
XXI.  A  Timitation  de  la  paque  des  Hibreux,  il  sera  institute  une  fete  commemora¬ 
tive  qui  tombera  le  premier  juin,  jour  de  I’expulsion  des  Tarquins  it  Rome,  et  con- 
sacre.i  a  ce  ebrer  I’abolition  de  la  royaute  le  plus  grand  des  fleaux  dont  I’espece  hu- 
maine  ait  e  e  la  victime.  No.  90. 

‘  May  7-14,  1791. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  REPUBLIC 


47 


negatively.  I.  Whether  the  elements  and  the  principles  of  our 
Constitution  are  not  in  continual  opposition  to  the  form  of  our 
government.  II.  Whether  every  hereditary  delegation  is  not  a 
violation  of  rights  and  a  contradiction  in  principles.  III.  Whether 
the  illustrious  citizen  of  Geneva  is  mistaken  when  he  says  that  the 
monarchy  is  a  government  contrary  to  nature. 

But  the  most  venomous  assault  upon  the  king  and  upon  royalty 
appeared  in  the  number  of  June  18-25,  which  reported  the  king’s 
flight.  Denunciatory  epithets  were  heaped  upon  the  faithless 
monarch.  “Julius  Caesar,  poigniarded  by  the  Romans;  Charles 
I.,  decapitated  by  the  English,  were  innocent,  if  we  compare  them 
to  Louis  XVI.  ...  If  the  President  of  the  National  Assembly 
had  put  to  vote  upon  the  question  whether  we  should  have  a 
republican  form  of  government,  in  the  Place  de  Greve,  in  the 
Garden  of  Tuileries  and  in  the  Palace  of  Orleans,  France  would 
no  more  be  a  monarchy.”  Such  w’ere  some  of  the  contents  of 
this  liberal  Parisian  paper.'  The  next  issue  (No.  103)  found 
fault  with  the  National  Assembly  for  not  dealing  severely  with 
the  king,  and  said  that,  inasmuch  as  war  would  come  anyway, 
it  had  better  come  under  a  republic  than  under  a  monarch  or 

1  The  picture  which  the  editor  gives  of  the  feeling  in  Paris  after  the  flight  of  Louis 
shows  him  to  be  an  extreme  radical,  and  that  the  people  of  the  city  were  greatly 
aroused  by  the  escape.  “  L’opinion  dominante  dtait  une  antipathic  pour  les  rois,  un 
mdpris  pour  la  personne  de  Louis  XVI.,  qui  se  manifesterent  jusque  dans  les  plus 
petits  details.  A  la  Greve,  on  fit  tomber  en  morceaux  le  buste  de  Louis  XVL, 
qu’dclairait  la  celdbre  lanterne,  TefTroi  des  ennemis  de  la  revolution.  Quand  done  le 
peuple  se  fera  t-il  justice  de  tous  ces  rois  de  bronze,  monuments  de  notre  idolatrie? 
Rue  Saint- Honord,  on  exigea  d’un  marchand  le  sacrifice  d’une  teie  de  plat  re,  a.  la 
ressemblance  de  Louis  XVL  ;  dans  un  autre  magasin,  on  se  contenta  de  lui  poser  sur 
les  yeux  un  bandeau  de  papier;  les  noms  de  roi,  reine,  royale.  Bourbon,  Louis,  eour, 
monsieur,  frire  du  roi  furent  efiac6.s  par  tout  ofi  on  les  trouva  Merits  sur  tous  les  tab¬ 
leaux  et  en.seignes  des  magasins  et  des  boutiques.  Le  Palais  royal  tsl  aujourd’hui  le 
Palais  d’Orl6ans.  Les  couronnes  peintes  furent  nignie  proscrites,  et  le  jour  de  la  FSte- 
Dieu  on  les  couvrit  d’un  voile  sur  les  tapisseries  ou  elles  se  trouvoient,  afin  de  ne 
point  souiller  par  leur  aspect  la  saintetd  de  le  proce.ssion.  .  .  .  Un  piquet  de  cin- 

quante  lances  fit  des  patrouilles  jusque  dans  les  Tuileries,  portant  pour  banni^re  un 
^criteau,  avec  cette  inscription  : 

Vivre  libre  ou  mourir, 

Louis  XVL,  s’expatriant, 

N’existe  plus  pour  nous.” 

No.  102. 


48 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


a  regent.  Here  also  appeared  an  announcement  of  the  propa- 
gandism  of  liberty,  of  which  the  Girondists  spoke  so  enthusiastic¬ 
ally  a  year  later.*  A  few  numbers  later,  an  article  censured  the 
indifference  of  the  people  in  regard  to  the  elections  for  the  coming 
Legislative  A.ssembly,  saying  that  upon  the  composition  of  this 
body  would  depend  the  safety  of  the  republic.  The  Constituent 
Assembly  is  not  spared  criticism  for  making  the  Constitution 
unalterable  by  the  Legislative  Assembly.’  In  subsequent  num¬ 
bers  of  the  autumn  of  1791,  the  monarchical  features  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  w'ere  pointed  out  and  criticised.®  Later  on,  the  republic 
was  mentioned  less  frequently,  nevertheless  royalty  was  still  at¬ 
tacked.  The  issue  which  gave  an  account  of  the  events  of  August 
10,  1792,  the  determination  of  the  Legislative  Assembly  to  sus¬ 
pend  the  king  and  to  call  a  National  Convention  to  determine  the 
nature  of  the  executive  office,  referred  to  the  king  as  “Louis 
XVI.,  whom  we  shall  call  no  more  the  king  of  the  French.’’ 
The  number  following  advised  the  members  of  the  convention 
that  their  finst  work  should  be  to  dethrone  the  monarch,  but  a 
republic  was  not  explicitly  recommended.*  That  this  paper  exer- 

1  “  II  ne  nous  faut  qu’un  seul  chef  du  pouvoir  exdcutif,  mais  un  chef  a,  temps,  un  chef 
impuissant  par  lui  meme,  qui  n’ait  d’autorite  que  celle  de  la  loi.  II  est  temps,  il  est 
plus  que  temps  de  frapper  un  grand  coup  :  que  la  tete  de  Louis  tombe  ;  ou  bien  qu’on 
le  dddaigne,  elle  est  assez  mdprisable ;  que  le  trOne  et  tous  les  pompeux  hochets  de  la 
royaut6  soient  livrds  aux  flammes ;  que  I’assemblee  nationale  de  la  monarchic  fasse 
place  au  s6nat  de  la  rfipublique  ;  que  celui-ci  adresse  un  manifesta  k  tous  les  tyrans  de 
I’Europe  ;  qu’il  invite  tous  les  peuples  ^  la  liberte ;  qu’k  la  premiere  hostility  d’immenses 
legions  de  nos  nouveaux  r^publicanes  aillent  exterminer  tous  les  despotes,  et  planter 
le  drapeau  de  la  liberty  jusque  dans  le  fond  de  I’Allemagne;  nous  serons  fibres  alors, 
nous  pr^viendrons  la  guerre  qu’on  vent  apporter  chez  nous,  et  la  France  aura  la  gloire, 
inconnue  jusqu’  k  ce  jour,  devoir  non  pas  conquis  I’Europe  i  la  France,  mais  conquis 
I’univers  k  la  liberty,  en  le  purgeant  des  rois,  empereurs,  et  tyrans  de  touts  espies.’ 
No.  103. 

’  T,  8,  606  et  seq. 

’In  No.  1 15,  September  17-24,  reference  was  made  to  the  prize  offered  by  the 
Jacobin  Club  for  an  Almanac  to  be  distributed  among  the  people  teaching  the  advan¬ 
tages  of  the  constitution,  but  the  editor  suggests  that  they  had  better  offer  a  prize  for 
an  almanac  revealing  the  defects  of  the  constitution. 

’  “  II  n’est  pas  besoin  d’examiner  I’abolition  de  la  royautd.  Le  voeu  de  la  nation’ 
sans  doute,  est  assez  prononed ;  sans  doute  ceux-mfimes  qui  prdtendaient  que  les 
adresses  de  tous  les  d^partements  sur  la  ddchdance  ne  suffisoient  pas  k  I’assembl^e 
nationale  avant  le  10  aofit,  sont  k  present  convaincus  que  les  Frangais  ne  veulent  ni 
d’un  roi  de  leur  nation,  ni  d’un  dtranger.”  Noting  the  weakness  in  the  American 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  REPUBLIC 


49 


cised  considerable  influence  in  arousing  hostility  to  the  king  and 
to  the  monarchy,  and  in  suggesting  a  republic,  seems  quite  reas¬ 
onable,  when  we  remember  that  its  weekly  circulation  reached 
nearly  two  hundred  thousand  copies.* 

We  have  deemed  it  advisable  to  follow  the  Revolutions  de  Paris 
through  to  the  proclamation  of  the  republic,  in  order  to  give  a 
connected  account  of  the  direction  in  which  this  popular  publica¬ 
tion  attempted  to  sway  public  opinion.  Having  noted  that  its 
positive  republicanism  was  manifest  in  April,  two  months  before 
Louis  XVI’S  unsuccessful  attempt  at  exodus,  we  shall  endeavor 
to  see  what  was  the  strength  which  this  party  possessed  in  the 
summer  of  1791. 

Bonneville’s  paper,  Bouche  de  fer,  in  June,  1791,  pronounced 
against  a  monarchy,  a  protectorate,  and  a  regency,  and  urged  an 
united  declaration  to  the  effect  that  they  wanted  no  more  of  these. ^ 
A  placard  was  posted  at  the  door  of  the  Assembly,  July  ist,  an¬ 
nouncing  that  a  society  of  republicans  had  resolved  to  publish  a 
paper,  Le  Republican,  for  pointing  out  the  abuses  of  monarchy  and 
for  enlightening  the  minds  of  the  people  upon  republicanism.  This 
was  signed  by  Duchastellet.’  A  few  copies  of  this  paper  were 
published  within  this  month.*  Montlosier  mentions  the  existence 
of  a  republican  party  after  the  flight  of  the  king,®  and  Gouverneur 
Morris  wrote,  July  13,  1791,  what  confirms  the  same  fact.  Here 
is  what  he  said  :  “  This  step  was  a  very  foolish  one.  .  .  .  His  de¬ 
parture  changed  everything,  and  now  the  general  wish  seems  to 
be  for  a  republic,  which  is  quite  in  the  natural  order  of  things.”  ‘ 

constitution  which  made  it  possible  for  one  man,  Washington  or  Adams,  to  acquire 
too  great  power,  the  article  urged  that  the  French  should  imitate  no  country,  but 
should  work  out  their  own  plan.  However,  this  same  number  told  of  the  first  meeting 
of  the  Convention  and  of  the  abolition  of  the  monarchy. 

’  Stephens,  The  French  Revolution,  i,  102. 

Hist.  Tarl.,  X,  414.  ^  Hist.  Gin.,  x,  449. 

‘  E.  Hamel,  Hist,  de  Robespierre,  i,  38S  et  seq.,  Paris,  1867. 

®  Trois  difierentes  opinions  partageaient  done  TAssemblSe  et  la  France.  La  pre¬ 
miere,  de  retablir  le  roi,  et  de  maintenir  la  monarchie  d’aprds  les  bases  de  la  consti. 
tution;  la  seconde,  d’abolir  la  royau'e  et  d’dlever  une  r^publique;  la  troisieme 
mitoyenne  entre  les  deux  autres,  de  retablir  le  roi  ou  de  placer  le  dauphin  sur  le 
tr6ne,  mais  de  I'environner  d’un  conseil  exdcutif  indSpendant  dont  les  membres 
amovibles  fussent  dlus  par  le  peuple.”  Montlosier,  Memoires,  t,  i,  467  et  seq. 

*  Diary  and  Letters,  i,  436. 


50 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


On  the  eve  of  the  convening  of  the  I^egislative  Assembly,  Sep¬ 
tember  30,  1791,  Morris  wrote  to  Washington  the  following 
explicit  observations  upon  the  status  of  the  republican  movement: 
“The  new  Assembly,  as  far  as  can  at  present  be  determined,  is 
deeply  imbued  with  republican  or,  rather,  democratic  principles. 
The  southern  part  of  the  kingdom  is  in  the  same  disposition;  the 
eastern  is  attached  to  Germany  and  would  gladly  be  united  to  the 
empire;  Normandy  is  aristocratical,  and  so  is  part  of  Brittany; 
the  interior  part  of  the  kingdom  is  monarchal.  This  map  is  (you 
may  rely  on  it)  just,  for  it  is  the  result  of  great  and  expensive  in¬ 
vestigation  made  by  the  Government.’’  *  Brissot’s  paper,  Patriate 
franfais,  of  June  25,  1791,  in  analyzing  the  proposals  then  made 
for  the  executive  department  of  the  government,  said:  “  The  first 
opinion  which  has  been  presented  to  the  public  is  decisive, — No 
more  kings,  let  us  be  republicans, — such  has  been  the  gry  of  the 
Palais  Royal,  of  some  societies,  of  some  writers.’”  Thomas 
Paine’s  letter  in  response  to  Sieyes,  published  in  the  Patriate 
/ranfais,  }\.\\y  ii,  declares  the  American  system  of  government 
superior  to  every  other,  and  closes  the  letter  with  these  suggestive 
words:  “  Enfin  c’est  ^  tout  I’enfer  de  la  monarchic  que  j’ai  declare 
la  guerre.’’ ® 

From  these  accumulated  statements,  we  infer  that  about  Paris, 
in  the  spring  of  1791,  especially  after  the  20th  of  June,  there  was 
much  agitation  in  favor  of  the  dethronement  of  Louis  XVI,  some 
for  the  change  of  the  royal  family,  and  a  perceptible  tendency  in 
favor  of  a  republic.  After  the  acceptance  of  the  Const!  ution  by 
the  king  and  by  the  Legislative  Assembly,  the  constitutional  ques¬ 
tion  of  the  kingship  is  little  discussed  till  in  the  summer  of  1792. 
Then  the  Legislative  Assembly  was  frightened  over  the  defeat  of 
the  French  army  at  Lille  and  at  Tournay,  the  disastrous  defeat 
of  Biron’s  army  at  Mons,  and  the  probable  advance  of  the 
Austrian  army  upon  Paris.  The  king,  following  the  advice  of 
Montmorin  and  Malouet,  had  sent  Mallet  du  Pan  on  a  mission  to 
the  German  courts  to  secure  a  manifesto  of  intimidation  against 
the  factious  Frenchmen.*  The  Austrian  cammittee  was  denounced 
boldly  in  the  journals  and  in  the  Assembly.^ 

'  Diary  and  Letters,  i,  456  et  seq.  ’  Hist.  Pari.,  x,  414  et  seq. 

5  Ibid.,  452.  *  Ibid.,  xxv,  422  et  seq. 

^  Hist.  Cen.,  viii,  133-134;  Hist.  Pari.,  xiv,  278  et  seq.-.  Sore),  LI  Europe  et  la 
Rev.fr.,  ii,  478. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  REPUBLIC 


51 


Incited  by  this  array  of  reverses,  royal  intrigues,  and  threatened 
invasion,  the  Assembly  passed  three  decrees  for  the  protection  of 
the  country:  May  27,  the  deportation  of  the  non-juring  priests; 
May  29,  the  dismissal  of  the  king’s  guard;  June  8,  the  formation 
of  a  camp  of  20,000  federes  at  Paris.  The  king  opposed  his  veto  to 
the  first  and  last  of  these.  The  Girondin  ministry  was  dismissed 
early  in  June.'  The  invasion  of  the  Tuileries,  June  20,  was  the 
result  of  these  aggravations.  The  petition  presented  to  the  Leg¬ 
islative  Assembly  by  the  crowd  on  that  day  does  not  solicit  the 
establishment  of  a  republic,  but  urges  that  the  king  should  fulfill 
his  constitutional  function  of  protecting  liberty.^  The  king  con¬ 
tinued  to  be  disturbed  by  the  people.  The  manifesto  of  the  Duke 
of  Brunswick,  July  27,  greatly  excited  the  Parisians,  already 
much  aroused.  Then  from  the  sections  of  Paris,  from  adminis¬ 
trative  bodies,  and  from  communes,  addresses  were  sent  in  asking 
for  the  suspension  or  the  dethronement  of  the  king."  The  signi¬ 
ficant  fact  about  this  outcry  for  the  removal  of  Louis  is  the  silence 
about  what  is  to  supersede  him.  The  commune  representing  the 
forty-eight  sections  of  Paris,  through  Petion,  presented  at  the 
bar  of  the  Assembly,  August  3,  a  petition  most  vehement  in  its 
denunciation  of  the  faithless  monarch  and  most  startling  in  the 
picture  presented  of  the  country’s  danger;  but  this  commune,  the 
most  radical,  perhaps,  in  France,  invoked  the  Constitution  in 
praying  for  his  dethronement.* 

The  Legislative  Assembl}'^  hesitated  to  take  upon  itself  the 
work  of  deposition.  The  sections  gave  it  till  midnight  of  the  9th 
of  August  to  decide;  if  at  that  time  the  dethronement  had  not 
been  voted,  the  tocsin  should  sound  and  the  ghierale  should  beat 
for  the  insurrection.  The  Assembly  adjourned  at  7  o’clock  with¬ 
out  deciding  the  question.  The  loth  of  August  the  King  was 
driven  from  the  Tuileries,  and  took  refuge  in  the  Assembly. 

*  Hist.  Pari.,  xv,  32  et  seq. 

’  La  liberty  ne  peut  5tre  suspendue ;  si  le  pouvoir  ex^cutif  n’agit  point,  il  ne  pent 
y  avoir  d’alternatives,  c’est  lui  qui  doit  I’filre  :  un  seul  homme  ne  doit  point  influencer 
la  volont6  de  vingt-cinq  millions  d’hommes.  Si,  par  egard,  nous  le  maintenons  dans 
son  poste,  c’est  &  condition  qu’il  le  remplira  constitutionellement ;  s’il  s’en  6carte,  il 
n’est  plus  rien  pour  le  peuple  framjais.  Hist.  Pari.,  xv,  139. 

’  Hist.  Pari.,  324  et  seq. 

Louis  XVI.  invoque  sans  cesse  la  Constitution :  nous  I’invoquons  h  notre  tour,  et 
nous  demandons  sa  d6ch6ance.  Hist.  Pari.,  xvi,  319. 


52 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


Even  then  the  legislators  only  suspended  the  King  until  “the 
National  Convention  should  pronounce  upon  the  measures  which 
it  believes  ought  to  be  adopted  for  assuring  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people  and  the  reign  of  liberty  and  equality.”  * 

August  II,  the  Assembly  provided  for  the  mode  of  election  for 
the  members  of  the  new  Convention,  and  gave  universal  suffrage 
to  males  over  21  years.  Did  it  ask  that  the  delegates  should  be 
instructed  to  vote  for  the  monarchy  or  the  republic  ?  No;  but  they 
were  to  be  given  “  unlimited  confidence.”  ’  M.  Aulard  has  ana¬ 
lyzed  for  us  the  powers  given  by  the  primary  assemblies  to  the 
electoral  assemblies  of  the  Departments  and  by  the  latter  to  the 
deputies.  He  notes  that  almost  universally  the  primary  assem¬ 
blies  conformed  to  the  advice  to  grant  unlimited  powers  to  the 
departmental  electors.  At  the  final  election  of  deputies,  Septem¬ 
ber  2,  in  thirty-four  Departments  the  electors  made  no  allusion  to 
what  powers  should  be  bestowed  upon  their  representatives;  in 
thirty-six  they  gave  them  ‘  ‘  unlimited  powers  ”  or  “  unlimited  con¬ 
fidence;”  in  two  Departments,  the  Lower  Pyrenees  and  Somme, 
the  previous  question  was  raised  upon  the  powers  to  be  given;  in  a 
single  one  (Charente)  they  gave  as  mandate  the  oath  taken  by  the 
electors,  “to  maintain  equality  and  liberty.”  In  three  Depart¬ 
ments,  Aisne,  Eure-et-Soir,  and  Paris,  they  gave  full  powers  with 
the  restriction  that  the  constitutional  laws  to  be  made  shall  be 
submitted  to  the  ratification  of  the  people.  Thus  all  either 
‘  ‘  inscribed  the  formula  prescribed  by  the  Legislature  or  omitted 
it  as  useless  and  self-evident.” 

Shall  there  be  a  monarchy  or  a  republic  ?  What  was  the  voice 
of  the  departments  upon  this  question  ?  Only  one  out  of  the 
eighty-three  Departments  expressed  a  clear  demand  upon  this 
point.  This  one,  that  which  includes  Paris,  asked  for  ‘  ‘  the 
form  of  a  republican  government.”  In  the  other  eighty-two  the 
word  republic  was  not  pronounced.  One  Department,  Jura,  how¬ 
ever,  attempted  to  define  in  rather  express  terms  the  sort  of 
government  to  be  formed,  “A  temporary  executive  power,  re¬ 
movable  at  the  option  of  the  people,”  but  it  does  not  use  the  term 
republic?  Four  Departments  were  pronounced  against  royalty. 

Hist.  Pari.,  xvii,  48.  ‘‘Ibid.,  44. 

’  From  some  Department  of  Jura  there  is  some  reason  to  believe  a  political  club  had 
addressed  a  letter  at  the  beginning  of  1792  to  the  Jacobin  Club  in  Paris,  asking  for 
the  establishment  of  a  republic.  Bir6,  Diary  of  a  Citizen,  etc.,  i,  45. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  REPUBLIC 


53 


and  swore  eternal  hostility  thereto;  these  were  Aube,  Charente- 
Inferieure,  Jura,  and  Paris.  No  Department  asked  the  continu¬ 
ance  of  the  monarchy,  and  only  a  few  primary  assemblies  asked 
this.  These  assemblies  were  in  four  Departments,  i.  e.,  five  in 
Allier,  one  in  Ariege,  three  in  the  Gironde,  and  two  in  Dot-et- 
Garoiine. 

If  we  examine  the  proceedings  of  the  Jacobin  Club,  we  find  that 
this  .society  was  devoted  for  some  time  to  the  King  and  to  the 
constitution.*  No  bitter  opposition  to  the  monarch  is  found  till 
after  June  20,  1791.  Then  it  was  his  violation  of  the  constitution 
that  caused  his  denunciation.  After  the  two  famous  vetoes,  a 
member  proposed  in  the  Club  that  they  make  use  of  Art.  vi.  Sec. 
10,  Chapt.  2,  of  the  Constitution,  “If  the  King  puts  himself 
at  the  head  of  an  army  and  directs  the  forces  against  the  nation 
...  he  will  be  considered  to  have  abdicated  royalty.’’  '  The 
printing  of  this  discourse  was  urged  on  all  hands.  The  Club  fre¬ 
quently  mentioned  the  calling  of  a  convention.  Its  sympathy 
with  the  work  of  August  10  is  evident,”  and  its  hostility  to  the 
monarchy  is  more  pronounced  from  this  period.* 

A  definite  suggestion  of  the  constructive  scheme  was  made  in  the 
Club,  September  7  ;  Chabot  introduced  the  discussion  of  the  form 
of  government,  and  referred  to  two  kinds,  (i)  the  federation  of  the 
departments,  and  (2)  a  National  Council,  which  should  be  pre¬ 
sided  over  in  turn  by  one  of  the  deputies  of  one  of  the  portions 
of  the  empire.  Chabot  favored  the  latter.”  Again  returning  to 

*  F.  A.  Aulard,  La  Sociiti  des  yacobins,  i,  Intro.,  XII,  XIII,  Paris,  1889. 

*  Ibid.,  iv,  80. 

*  The  club  decreed  August  12:  “  Qu’il  sera  fait  une  adresse  aux  Societes  affili6s, 
pour  leur  donner  une  connaissance  exacte  des  ^venements  du  10  Aout,  les  instruire 
du  courage  et  du  patriotisme  qu’ont  d6ploye  dans  cette  journ^e  k  jamais  memorable 
les  f^d^r^s  des  quatre  vingt-trois  departments,  qui  avec  leurs  frdres  d’armes  de  Paris, 
ont  sauve  le  patrie.”  Aulard,  La  Sociili  des  yacobins,  iv,  194,  195.  August  22,  an 
address  was  sent  to  the  affiliated  society  pointing  out  what  class  of  men  should  be 
chosen  for  the  Convention.  If  they  do  not  choose  these,  a  new  insurrection  like  that 
of  August  10  may  be  necessary.  La  Sociiti  des  yacobins.  iv,  233-235. 

^  One  of  the  speakers,  M.  Manuel,  said,  August  27  :  “  Nous  devons  tous  jurer,  et  y’en 
fais  le  premier  le  serment,  it  quelque  poste  que  Je  me  trouve  plac6  tous  mes  efforts 
seront  diriges  vers  ce  but  important,  de  purger  la  terre  de  fleau  de  la  toyaut6.”  La 
Sociiti  des  yacobins,  iv,  238  et  seq. 

‘  Ibid.,  iv,  259  et  seq. 


54 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


the  same  question,  September  lo,  Terrasson  pronounced  a  prefer¬ 
ence  for  the  federation,  and  cited  Rousseau  as  his  authority  and 
America  for  a  successful  example.*  Two  days  after,  September 
12,  a  letter  was  proposed  and  was  adopted  in  the  Jacobin  Club  of 
Paris,  to  be  sent  to  the  affiliated  societies.  In  it  were  contained 
these  three  proposals,  which  may  be  regarded  as  setting  forth  the 
policy  of  the  democratic  party  of  Paris  ;  the  popular  sanction  or 
popular  revision  of  all  the  constitutional  decrees  of  the  National 
Convention  ;  the  total  abolition  of  royalty,  and  the  penalty  of 
death  against  those  who  proposed  to  re-establish  it ;  the  repub- 
lican  form  of  govern77ient.^ 

The  significance  of  this  movement  on  the  part  of  the  parent 
Jacobin  Club  must  not  be  overlooked  in  tracing  the  progress  of 
republicanism.  The  affiliation  of  well  nigh  a  thousand  societies 
in  other  parts  of  France  with  the  parent  society  afforded  a  strong 
and  thoroughly  organized  means  for  concerted  political  action.* 
The  nominees  of  the  popular  societies  were  nearly  everywhere 

>  Societi:  des  Jacobins,  iv,  273  et  seq.  . 

’  “  La  sanction  ou  la  revision  populaire  de  tons  les  d^crets  constitutionnels  de  la 
convention  nationale ;  I’abolition  absolue  de  la  royautd  et  peine  de  mort  centre  ceux 
qui  proposeraient  de  la  rdtablir;  la  forme  d’un  gouvernement  r^publicain.”  La  So- 
ciiti  des  Jacobins,  iv,  281.  A  letter  written  by  an  English  lady  from  Arras,  Septem¬ 
ber  I,  1792,  contains  this  statement :  “  Mr.  Thomas  Paine  .  .  .  is  in  high  repute  here 
— his  works  are  translated- — all  the  Jacobins  who  can  read,  quote,  and  all  who  can’t, 
admire  him.”  A  Residence  in  France,  i,  68. 

^December  21,  1790,  the  Jacobin  Club  printed  a  list  of  1,100  members ;  August 
16,  1790,  there  were  fifteen  affiliated  societies.  These  affiliations  increased  rapidly  in 
the  spring  of  1791,  so  that  by  June  16,  there  weie  406  affiliated  and  14  corresponding 
societies;  by  June,  1793,  there  were  a  thousand  affiliated  clubs.  La  SociHi 

des  Jacobins,  i.  Intro.,  xxxiii-xxxix.  That  these  clubs  knew  how  to  make  use  of  their 
affiliations  for  political  action  is  patent  from  the  letter  sent  out  among  them,  August 
22,  four  days  before  the  primary  elections  were  held  :  “  C’est  a  nous  a  le  soutenir  ;  et 
nous  le  pouvons,  en  eloignant  des  assemblies  electorales  tous  ceux  qui  ont  protigi, 
meme  indirectement  la  cour  et  le  sacerdoce,  les  emigres  et  leurs  adherents.  Notre 
choix  ne  doit  pas  etre  difficile;  les  patriotes  font  la  majorite  de  la  nation.  Ils  peuvent 
done,  s’ils  savent  se  riunis,  faire  des  choix  favorables  h  leurs  intirits.  Les  electeurs  itant 
payis  a.  trois  livres  .  .  il  n’est  plus  nicessaire  d’itre  riche  bourgeois,  pritre,  ou  ci- 
devant  noble  pour  accepter  cette  noble  mission ;  et,  si  la  majoriti  des  ilecteurs  est  au 
niveau  de  la  rivolution  du  10  Aoftt  1792  nos  nouveaux  dipules  ne  tarderont  pas  a,  la 
consolider  et  i  sauver  le  peuple  par  une  constitution  conformi  k  la  diclaration  des 
droits  et  k  I’intiret  du  plus  grand  nombre.”  SociHe  ctes  Jacobins,  iv,  233,  et  seq. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  REPUBLIC 


55 


chosen  to  represent  the  provinces  in  the  Convention.'  In  the  list 
of  deputies  from  Paris  appeared  the  names  of  pronounced  repub¬ 
licans  and  radical  Jacobins  who  might  be  expected  to  take  a 
stand  for  a  popular  form  of  government.^ 

The  Convention  held  its  first  meeting  in  the  Tuileries ; 
only  371  members  were  present.  They  verified  their  powers, 
organized  by  choosing  Petion  as  President,  and  by  naming  five 
Secretaries.  September  21,  they  occupied  the  place  of  the  Legis¬ 
lative  Assembly  in  the  Riding  School.  Here  they  had  declared 
in  favor  of  the  following  measures  suitable  for  allaying  the  fears 
of  disorder:  (i)  The  National  Convention  declares  that  there  can 
only  be  a  constitution  when  it  is  accepted  by  the  people ;  (2) 
that  the  security  of  person  and  of  property  is  under  the  safe¬ 
guard  of  the  nation  ;  (3)  that  all  laws  not  abrogated,  and  all 
powers  not  revoked  or  suspended  are  maintained  ;  (4)  that  the 
existing  taxes  shall  be  collected  as  in  the  past. 

This  effected,  they  were  about  to  adjourn,  when  Collot  d’Her- 
bois  ascended  the  tribune  and  said  :  “  You  have  just  passed  a  wise 
resolution,  but  there  is  one  which  you  can  not  put  off  till  to¬ 
morrow,  which  you  can  not  put  off  till  this  evening,  which  you 
can  not  put  off  a  single  instant  without  being  unfaithful  to  the 
wish  of  the  nation  ;  that  is  the  abolition  of  royalty.”  Unanimous 
applause  greeted  this  speech.  M.  Gregoire  proposed  that  ‘‘by 
a  solemn  law  they  sanction  the  abolition  of  royalty,”  and  the 

’Stephen’s  French  Rev.,  ii,  154;  Babeau’s  Hist,  de  Troyes  pendant  la  Rev.,\, 
527,  528.  The  following  excerpt  from  A  Residetice  in  France,  1792-95,  described 
in  a  series  of  letters  from  an  English  Lady,  i,  93  :  “  If  the  electors  and  elected  of  the 
other  departments  be  of  the  same  complexion  with  those  of  Arras,  the  new  Assembly 
will  not,  in  any  respect,  be  preferable  to  the  old  one.  I  have  reproached  many  of  the 
people  of  this  place,  who,  from  their  education  and  property,  have  a  right  to  take  an 
interest  in  the  public  affairs,  with  thus  suffering  themselves  to  be  represented  by  the 
most  desperate  and  worthless  individuals  of  the  town.  Their  defense  is  that  they  are 
insulted  and  overpowered  if  they  attend  the  popular  meetings,  and  by  electing  les 
gueux  et  les  scllirats  pour  dlputis,  they  send  them  to  Paris  and  secure  their  own 
local  tranquillity. 

’  The  twenty-four  deputies  from  the  city  were  Robespierre,  Danton,  Collot- 
d’Herbois,  Manuel,  Billaud-Varenne,  Camille  Desmoulins,  Marat,  Lavicomterie> 
Legendre  the  butcher,  Raffron  du  Trouillet,  Paris,  Sergent,  Robert,  Dusaulx,  Fr^ron’ 
Beauvis  de  Preau,  Fabre  d'Eglantine  the  dramatist,  Osselin,  Augustine  Robespierre; 
David  the  great  painter,  Boucher,  Laignelot,  Thomas,  the  ci-devant  Duke  of  Orleans’ 
now  democratically  named  Philippe  figalit^.  Stephen’s  French  Rev.,  ii,  155,  156. 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


56 

entire  Assembly  by  a  spontaneous  movement  arose  and  voted  tbis 
proclamation  by  acclamation  ;  a  brief  discussion  followed,  and 
then  with  loud  bursts  of  applause  they  voted,  “The  National 
Convention  decrees  that  royalty  is  abolished  in  France.”  For 
some  time  the  cr}'  “  Vive  la  Nation"  was  prolonged.  At  this 
juncture  a  company  of  150  chasseurs  were  admitted  to  the  hall 
and  swore  upon  their  arms  to  return  only  after  having  triumphed 
over  all  the  enemies  of  liberty  and  equality.  But  as  yet  the  word 
Republic  had  not  been  mentioned  in  the  new  Convention. 

At  the  evening  session  of  that  day  the  time  was  consumed  in  hear¬ 
ing  of  the  discourses  of  divers  deputations  that  had  come  to  congrat¬ 
ulate  the  Convention  upon  the  great  work  done  that  day.  Two 
of  the.se  spoke  of  the  Republic  as  an  already  established  fact,* 
while  on  the  streets,  however,  of  the  city  the  cry  was  resounding, 
“  Vive  la  Republique."  One  orator  spoke  of  nine  battalions  al¬ 
ready  sent  to  the  front,  and  reported  that  another  was  on  the 
way.  “They  were  coming,”  he  said,  “to  pray  your  blessing 
upon  their  arms,  when  they  learned  on  the  way  that  they 
were  to  fight  no  more  for  kings.  They  were  happy  to  go  to 
save  the  Republic.  When  they  were  informed  that  all  your 
moments  must  be  consecrated  to  it,  they  renounced  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  receiving  your  blessing  and  went  on  their  way.  Our 
Department  is  busy  forming  new  battalions,  in  seeking  to  arm 
them,  and  especially  in  inspiring  them  with  republican  man¬ 
ners.”  This  was  greeted  with  new  applause.  The  section  of 
Quatre-Nations  was  represented  by  its  orator,  who  said  among 
other  things;  “We  have  given  three  thousand  men  for  the 

frontier  ;  these  are  three  thousand  republicans . We 

ask  to  defile  through  your  midst.  If  arms  are  needed,  speak,  we 
shall  hasten  to  u.se  them  in  the  defense  of  the  country,  too  happy 
to  pay  with  our  blood  for  the  Republic  which  you  have  decreed 
for  us.”  Applause  greeted  this  expression  of  devotion.^  The 
newspapers  signaled  the  decree  of  abolition  in  enthusiastic 

1  The  proclamation  of  the  abolition  of  the  monarchy  filled  Paris  with  joy.  We  cite 
from  the  RH.  de  Paris,  No.  167,  534  :  “  Cette  proclamation,  parvenue  dans  les  48 
sections  de  Paris,  fut  r6p6tee  dans  tons  les  carrefours  au  bruit  des  cors  et  au  milieu  des 
applaudissements  universelles.  Tous  les  citoyens  k  I’envi  illumin^rent  le  devant  de 
leurs  maisons,  comme  k  I’occasion  d’un  grande  victoire  remportee  sur  le  plus  puissant 
de  nos  ennemis.” 

’  Hist.  Pari,,  xix,  6  et  seq. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  REPUBLIC 


57 

descriptions,  but  only  Brissot’s  Patriote  franiais  proclaimed, 
“  Royalty  is  abolished  ;  France  is  a  Republic.”  * 

On  the  morrow  early  in  the  session,  Billaud-Varenne  moved, 
and  the  Convention  decreed,  that  ‘‘all  public  acts  were  to  be 
dated  from  the  first  year  of  the  Republic.”  A  new  seal  of  State 
bearing  the  words  ‘‘  Republique  de  France  ”  was  decided  upon  and 
national  colors  were  proposed,  but  not  adopted.'  The  journals 
took  little  notice  of  this  new  name  with  which  France  had  been 
baptized.  Nevertheless,  the  members  of  the  Convention  seemed 
to  take  it  as  a  matter  of  course  and  to  make  repeated  use  of  the 
term  Republic.  For  instance,  on  September  22,  it  appeared  in  the 
following  decree:  ‘‘The  National  Convention  decrees  that  the 
committees  of  the  legislative  assembly  and  the  members  of  the 
executive  council  shall  render  an  account  to  the  National  Con¬ 
vention  of  the  state  of  their  work  and  of  the  condition  of  the  dif¬ 
ferent  parts  of  the  French  Republic  .  .  .  .”  The  report  of  the 
Minister  of  the  Interior,  M.  Gorsas,  in  the  session  of  September 
23,  contained  this  report  of  the  state  of  public  opinion:  ‘‘The  w’ill 
of  the  French  is  pronounced.  Liberty  and  equality  are  their 
supreme  good;  they  will  sacrifice  all  to  preserve  these.  They 
have  a  horror  for  the  crimes  of  the  nobles,  the  hypocrisy  of  the 
priests,  the  tyranny  of  kings.  Kings!  they  wish  no  more  of 
them,  they  know  that  outside  of  a  Republic  there  is  no  liberty.” 
Again  on  September  24,  the  Convention  decreed  ‘‘that  there 
shall  be  named  six  commissioners  charged  with  rendering  as 
full  an  account  as  shall  be  possible,  of  the  present  state  of  the 
Republic  and  that  of  Paris.”  On  September  25,  the  Convention 
declared  ‘‘  the  French  Republic  is  one  and  indivisible.”  ' 

Here  we  have  pas.sed  to  the  period  in  which  the  Republic  had 
become  an  accepted  fact  for  France.  Robespierre  said  truly  that 
it  had  ‘‘  glided  in  furtively  among  the  factions,”  and  we  may  say 
that  to  Frenchmen,  interested  in  the  national  defence,  it  was  a 
welcome  change.  Gouverneur  Morris  is  authority  for  this  in  a 
note  of  October,  1792,  in  which  he  said:  ‘‘These  are  the  outlines 
made  use  of  on  either  side  to  convince  the  public  that  each  is  ex- 

'  Hist.  Pari.,  xix,  20,  21. 

’  Bir6,  Diary  ef  a  Citizen,  i,  14;  Aulard,  Btudes  et  Ltfons  sur  la  Rlv.fr.,  109 
et  seq. 

•  Hist.  Pari.,  xix,  35,  39,  105. 


58 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


clusively  the  author  of  a  Republic  which  the  people  find  them¬ 
selves  possessed  of  by  a  kind  of  magic,  or  at  least,  a  sleight  of 
hand,  and  which,  nevertheless,  they  are  as  fond  of  as  if  it  were 
their  own  offspring.”  * 

It  would  be  interesting  to  know  how  completely  this  Parisian 
enthusiasm  was  shared  by  the  nation.  Grave  objections  may  have 
been  offered,  but  it  soon  came  about  that  to  be  disloyal  to  the 
Republic  was  to  be  a  foe  of  liberty  and  equality,  and,  worse  yet, 
a  traitor  to  France.  So  far  as  we  are  able  to  discover,  the  army 
accepted  the  Republic  with  enthusiasm.  On  September  9,  Gen¬ 
eral  Valence  wrote  to  Dumouriez  that  he  would  run  to  the  Rep7(blic 
with  transport.  Prieur  (de  la  Marne)  awakened  enthusiasm  in 
the  army  of  the  Ardennes  by  announcing  to  them  on  September 
29,  the  news  of  the  birth  of  the  Republic.’^  And  a  report  from 
the  camp  of  volunteers  at  Chalons  speaks  of  a  like  worthy 
sentiment.® 

The.se  are  the  facts  about  the  growth  of  republican  ideas  in 
Revolutionary  France  and  of  the  proclamation  of  the  Republic. 
We  can  sum  them  up  as  follows:  At  the  meeting  of  the  States- 
General  in  1789  France  was  pronouncedly  monarchic.  A  little 
coterie  of  men  became  anti-monarchical;  these  developed  the 
Club  of  Cordeliers.  In  1791,  when  Louis  XVI  showed  his  dis¬ 
trust  of  the  French  people  and  tried  to  escape,  hostility  to  the 
monarch  and  also  to  the  monarchy  was  strong.  Even  repub¬ 
licanism  was  championed  by  an  orator  in  the  Assembly  and  by  a 
few  newspapers;  one  of  these  journals,  the  Revolutions  de  Paris, 
had  a  large  circulation.  The  king  however  accepted  the  Consti¬ 
tution  in  September,  1791,  and  the  outcry  against  him  and  in 
favor  of  the  abolition  of  the  monarchy  subsided.  Not  until  in  the 
summer  of  1792  did  the  royal  vetoes,  the  menacing  manifesto  of 
the  allies,  the  actual  advance  of  the  Prussian  army  toward  Paris, 
call  lorth  many  petitions  and  requests  for  the  suspension  or  for 
the  dethronement  of  the  king,  or  for  the  abolition  of  the 
monarchy. 

Comparatively  little  was  said,  however,  about  the  form  to 
be  given  to  the  executive.  On  August  10,  the  Legislative 

•  Diary  and  Letters,  i,  596. 

’  Aulard,  Rtudes  et  Lefons. 

*  Revolutions  de  Paris,  ii,  68-76. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  REPUBLIC 


59 


Assembly  only  “suspended  Louis  XVI  provisionally,  until  the 
National  Convention  should  pronounce  upon  the  measures  it 
believed  ought  to  be  adopted  for  assuring  the  sovereignty  of  the 
people  and  the  reign  of  liberty  and  equality,’’  Clubs,  sections, 
journals,  and  provinces,  and  even  radical  democrats,  are  rather 
silent  about  a  substitute  for  the  monarchy.  When  the  abolition 
came  on  September  21,  it  was  received  as  the  news  of  a  national 
victory;  but  at  first  the  term  Republic,  used  on  the  22nd,  was 
little  greeted  by  the  nation.  It  however  became  the  shibboleth  of 
the  army  and  of  the  patriots.  For  this  revival  of  republicanism, 
Paris,  and  perhaps  the  army,  are  responsible.  The  Jacobin  Club 
of  Paris  also  made  use  of  its  influential  position  to  encourage 
republican  inclinations  in  the  affiliated  societies  throughout 
France,  and,  what  was  more  important  still,  to  secure  the  election 
of  anti-monarchical  and  of  democratic  deputies  to  the  Convention. 

A  few  questions  remain  to  be  answered.  First  among  these  is, 
What  was  the  relation  between  the  republican  movement  of  1791 
and  that  of  1792?  The  earlier  movement  must  have  had  a  ten¬ 
dency  to  increase  the  number  in  France  who  perceived  the  incon¬ 
sistency  between  individual  rights  and  the  equalit}^  of  men  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  hereditary  kingship  on  the  other.  It  also 
increased  the  number  of  those  who  believed  a  republic  suited  for 
France  and  who,  though  they  recognized  that  the  realization  of 
their  opinions  was  for  the  time  being  impo.ssible,  yet  were  ready  to 
strive  for  its  establishment  when  the  circumstances  should  give 
opportunity.  To  this  group  of  men  belongs  the  credit  of  having 
secured  an  expression  from  Paris  in  favor  of  the  Republic,  and  of 
having  secured  its  early  recognition  in  the  city  on  the  abolition 
of  royalty. 

A  second  question  is.  Why  was  there  so  much  said  in  1792 
about  the  abolition  of  monarchy,  and  so  little  about  the  Republic 
that  should  replace  it  ?  Why  were  those  of  republican  preferences 
so  slow  to  say  it?  This  may  be  answered  by  the  statement  that 
generally,  in  movements  depending  upon  public  opinion,  the 
people  are  more  pronounced  against  an  abuse  or  misuse  which 
they  have  experienced  than  about  an  untried  theory;  are  more 
capable  to  pronounce  upon  a  destructive  than  upon  a  constructive 
scheme,  are  more  enlightened  in  their  negative  than  in  their 
positive  actions.  The  Constituent  Assembly  was  happy  in  its 
negative  work  of  destroying  the  abuses  of  the  old  regime,  but  less 


6o 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  REPUBLIC 


felicitous  in  its  positive  work  of  reconstruction.  The  French 
people  of  1792  were  conversant  with  the  vacillations  of  the  king, 
the  treasonable  intrigues  and  anti-popular  feelings  of  the  court, 
but  a  Republic  was  as  5^et  an  untried  and  unproved  expedient. 
Under  its  name  anarchy,  or,  what  to  the  Parisians  was  little  less 
odious,  federalisvi,  might  become  the  order  of  the  day.  Hence 
the  very  friends  of  a  strong  united  Republic  hesitated  to  use  the 
word  till  the  form  of  the  institution  should  be  shaped  by  the  ten¬ 
dency  of  affairs.  The  very  friends  of  Republican  government 
might  have  remembered  that  their  use  of  the  word  Republic  in  ’ 
1791  had  been  fraught  with  bitter  schismatic  tendencies  among 
the  friends  of  the  Revolution;  and  how  much  more  dangerous 
such  a  schism  in  1792,  when  the  nation  found  itself  called  upon 
to  resist  the  humiliating  invasion  of  its  territory  by  the  allies. 
They  also  knew  that  to  be  a  republican  in  1791  had  been  unpopu¬ 
lar,’  and  were  chary  of  exposing  themselves  to  unnecessary  odium, 
knowing  that  the  monarchy  once  abolished,  they  would  be  by 
necessity  under  a  liberal  form  of  government,  call  it  what  they 
might. 

A  third  query  is.  Why  did  the  Conventionalists  choose  the 
republican  government  ?  The  question  is  easily  answered  by 
another  question,  i.  e.,  What  other  expedient  was  possible,  con¬ 
sidering  the  state  of  public  opinion?  Was  it  an  aristocracy? 
But  the  Revolution  in  its  incipient  stages  was  a  revolt  against  an 
aristocracy.  Was  it  a  regency  ?  But  here  the  difficulty  was  to 
find  a  regent  who  did  not  share  the  obloquy  of  the  dethroned 
monarch,  or  was  not  incapable  of  commanding  the  respect  of  the 
nation.  Was  it  under  the  protection  of  a  foreign  prince  or  power  ? 
Not  so;  the  spirit  of  national  independence  was  too  strong  to 
suffer  even  a  dispassionate  consideration  of  this.  What  way 
could  the  Constitutionalists  turn  ?  Sorel  has  truly  said:  “The 
abolition  of  royalty  was  the  acknowledgment  of  a  fact;  the  procla¬ 
mation  of  the  Republic  was  the  recognition  of  a  necessity.  A  gov¬ 
ernment  was  necessary  to  France,  and  no  other  than  a  republican 
government  was  possible.’’”  And  the  Republic  had  existed  in 

*  See  Si6y6s  disavowal,  Hist.  Pari.,  x,  451.  Brissot’s  Journal  of  Sept.  21,  1791, 
said  :  “  Qui  ne  se  rappellera  pas  avec  quelque  douleur,  que  le  mot  de  republique  etait 
alors  presque  proscrit  aux  Jacobins  mSme  ;  qu’  il  fallait  prendre  des  tournures  oratoires 
pour  justifier  le  rdpublicanisme.”  Hist.  Pari.,  xix,  20,  21. 

^  L' Europe  et  la  Rev,  fr.,  iii,  67. 


ORIGIN  OF  THE  REPUBLIC  6 1 

fact  in  France  for  two  short,  but  very  critical  periods.  From 
June  21  to  September  14,  1791,  the  king  had  been  suspended  and 
the  Constituent  Assembly  had  conducted  through  the  ministry 
the  work  of  the  executive.  And  again  from  August  10  to  Sep¬ 
tember  21,  1792,  the  same  expedient  was  resorted  to.  But  it  may 
be  said  that  the  Republic  was  not  in  accord  with  French  national 
traditions,  and  that,  therefore,  it  could  never  be  accepted  by  the 
nation.  True,  France  had  been  a  monarchy  for  centuries,  and 
the  history  of  her  kings  was  dear  to  the  people  in  1789;  but  there 
was  a  stronger  tradition  to  which  the  people  were  more  de¬ 
votedly  attached  than  to  royalty,  and  now  the  king  had  forced 
the  issue  between  these  two  traditions,  that  is,  the  tradition  of 
the  monarchy  and  the  tradition  of  nationality  and  independence. 
So  soon  as  it  seemed  clear  that  the  French  must  choose  between 
these,  the  choice  was  made  by  the  abolition  of  royalty. 

Royalty  was  thus  abolished  on  September  21,  1792:  the  republic 
was  recognized  by  the  Convention  as  its  legitimate  successor. 
The  name  had  been  adopted,  now  a  new  constitution  was  neces¬ 
sary  :  not  one  like  that  of  1791,  a  base  accommodation  of  hered¬ 
itary  powers  and  democratic  rights;  but  one  consistently  con¬ 
structed.  The  Convention  early  appointed  its  Committee  of  Con¬ 
stitution.  The  leader  in  the  committee  was  Condorcet,  and  the 
majority  were  Girondi.sts.  Their  work  was  ready  to  be  reported 
February  15  and  16,  1793.  But  by'  this  time  the  republicans 
themselves  had  formed  two  antagonistic  factions,  the  Girondists 
and  the  Montagnards.  The  latter  were  the  men  of  action,  and 
now  held  the  power  in  the  Convention.  Condorcet’s  Constitution 
was  not  submitted  to  the  nation. 

On  May  30,  1793,  the  Committee  of  Public  Safety  was  aug¬ 
mented  by  five  members.  These  w’ere  Couthon,  Herault  de 
Sechelles,  Mathieu,  Ramel,  and  Saint  Just.  They  lost  no  time  in 
the  elaboration  of  a  Constitution,  and  by  June  22,  were  ready  to 
report.  Herault  de  Sechelles  made  the  final  reading  June  24. 
Delegates  were  sent  all  over  France  to  receive  the  vote  of  the 
primary  assemblies  for  the  acceptance  of  the  Constitutional  Act; 
1,801,918  votes  were  cast  for  its  adoption.  Their  glowing  report 
was  made  August  9th  by  Gossuin,  and  the  next  day  was  fixed  as 
a  national  festival  “  consecrated  to  the  inauguration  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  of  the  Republic.”  The  artist,  David,  planned  the  cere¬ 
monies. 


62 


THE  FIRST  FRENCH  RUPUBLIC 


The  glorious  fundamental  law  was  not,  however,  to  reign  in 
France.  France  must  be  defended  from  invasion,  civil  war  must 
be  subdued,  and  then  the  rest  of  Europe  must  be  delivered  from 
political  slavery.  In  just  two  months  after  this  inaugural  festi¬ 
val,  the  Convention  decreed  that  the  provisional  government 
should  be  revolutionary  till  peace.  When  peace  came,  a  new 
monarch  was  enthroned.  But  these  enthusiastic  men  of  1792  and 
1793  had  given  France  a  name  and  an  ideal;  they  had  placed  above 
her  horizon  a  star  of  hope.  When  oppression  shall  make  them 
weary,  or  when  the  popular  spirits  shall  rise,  they  shall  think  of  a 
republic  as  the  aim  and  end  of  political  effort. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  THE  CHIEF  WORKS. 


Aquinas,  Thomas,  De  Regimine  Principium. 

Archives  parlementaires,  1st  Series,  vols.  1-50,  Paris,  1868. 

Aubertin,  Charles,  L'esprit  public  au  18  siicle,  Paris,  1873, 

Aulard,  F.  A.,  Hides  et  Lcfons  sur  la  revolution  franfaise,  Paris,  1893. 

Aulard,  F.  A.,  La  Sociitl  des  Jacobins,  5  vols.,  Paris,  1889. 

Aulard,  A.,  Histoire  politique  de  la  Revolution  franfaise,  Paris,  1901. 

Babeau,  A.,  La  Ville  sous  I'ancien  regime,  2  vols.,  Paris,  1884. 

Babeau,  Alfred,  La  Province  sous  PAncien  Rlgime,  2  vols.,  Paris,  1894. 

Babeau,  Alfred  A.,  Histoire  de  Troyes  pendant  la  Revolution,  Paris,  1873-4,  2  vols. 
Bird,  Jean  Baptiste  Edmond,  Diary  of  a  Citizen  of  Paris  during  the  Terror,  trans¬ 
lated  and  edited  by  John  de  Villliers,  2  vols.,  London,  1896. 

Bodin,  Jean,  De  Republica. 

Borgeaud,  Charles,  Atablissement  et  Revision  des  Constitutions  en  Amlrique  et  en 
Europe,  Paris,  1893. 

Bougeart,  Alfred,  Marat,  Pami  du  peuple,  2  vols.,  Paris,  1865. 

Bougeart,  Alfred,  Dan  ton,  Paris,  1 86 1. 

Boiteau,  Paul,  ^tat  de  la  Prance  en  lySg,  Paris,  1861. 

Chassin,  Charles  Louis,  Le  Glnie  de  la  Revolution,  Paris,  1864  and  65,  2  vols. 
Chassin,  Charles  Louis,  Les  Elections  et  les  Cahiers  de  Paris  en  lySg,  4  vols.,  Paris, 
1888,  89. 

Champion,  Edme,  La  France  d'aprls  les  Cahiers  de  ijSq,  Paris,  1897. 

Corwin,  R.  L.,  Entwicklung  und  Vergleichuug  der  Erziehungslehren  von  John 
Locke  und  Jean  Jacques  Rousseau,  Heidelberg,  1894. 

Daire,  M.  E.,  Physiocrates,  2  vols.,  Paris,  1846. 

D’Argenson,  Memoires,  5  vols.,  1857-58. 

D’Eichthal,  E.,  Souverainetf  de  peuple,  Paris,  1895. 

De  Tocqueville,  Alexis,  Memoires,  Letters  and  Remains,  2  vols.,  London,  i86i. 

De  Tocqueville,  L’Ancien  regime,  translated  by  Henry  Reeve. 

De  Lomenie,  L.  L.,  Les  Mirabeau,  2  vols.,  Paris,  1889-91. 

Flammermont,  Jules,  Remontrances  du  Par  lenient  de  Paris  au  XVIIL,  siicle,  Paris, 
1888. 

Flammermont,  Jules,  Le  Chancelier  Maupeau  et  les  Parlements,  Paris,  1885. 

Gomel,  Charles,  Les  Causes  financilres  de  la  revolution  franfaise,  Paris,  1893. 
Hamel,  E.,  Histoire  de  Robespierre,  3  vols,,  1867. 

Hervieu,  Henri,  Recherches  sur  les  premiers  fitats  gtnlraux,  Paris,  1879. 

HSffding,  Dr.  Harold,  A  History  of  Modern  Philosophy,  2  vols.,  translated  by  B.  E. 
Myers,  New  York,  1900. 


(63) 


64  BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  THE  CHIEF  WORKS 

Horning,  J.,  Les  idkes  politiques  de  Rousseau  in  “  y.  J.  Rousseau’s  jugi  par  les 
Ginevois  d’  aujourd  ’kui.” 

Jaeger,  Eugen,  Geschichte  der  socialen  Betvegung  und des  Socialism  in  Franckreiche, 
Berlin,  1879,  1890. 

Jellinek,  Dr.  George,  Die  Erkldrung  der  Menschen-  und  Burgerrechte. 

La  Marck.  Correspondance  entre  Mirabeau  et  La  March. 

Larousse,  P.,  Dictionnaire  Universel  du  XIX  sibcle. 

Lavisse,  Ernest,  Histoire  Gbnirale,  Rambaud  et  Lavisse,  12  vols.,  Paris. 

La  Grande  Encyclopldie. 

Lowell,  Edward  J.,  The  Eve  of  the  French  Revolution,  Boston,  1893. 

Marion,  Henri,  J.  Locke — Sa  Vie  et  son  Oeuvre  cTaprls  des  documents  nouveaux, 
Paris,  1893. 

Martin,  Henri,  Histoire  de  France,  17  vols.,  Paris,  1865. 

Mirabeau,  Comte  de.  Letters  de  Cache,  Oeuvres,  edition  of  1820. 

Mirabeau,  Comte  de,  Mb7noires,  Brussels,  1834-36. 

Mirabeau,  Comte  de.  Oeuvres,  Paris,  1835. 

Mirabeau,  Comte  de,  Correspondance  entre  Mirabeau  et  La  Marck. 

Montesquieu,  Esprit  des  Lois. 

Montlosier,  Comte  de,  Mh/toires. 

Morley,  John,  Rousseau,  2  vols.,  Macmillan  &  Co.,  New  York,  1890. 

Morley,  John,  Diderot  and  the  Encyclopaedists,  2  vols..  New  York,  1897. 

Morris,  Gouverneur,  Diary  and  Letters,  edited  by  A.  C.  Morris,  New  York,  1888, 
2  vols. 

Neymarck,  Alfred,  Turgot  et  ses  doctrines,  2  vols.,  Paris,  1885. 

Picot,  G.,  Histoire  des  ftats generaux,  Paris,  1888,  5  vols. 

Poole,  Reginald  A.,  Illustrations  of  the  History  of  Mediaeval  Thought,  London, 
1884. 

Rambaud,  Alfred,  Histoire  Genbrale,  Rambaud  et  Lavisse,  12  vols.,  Paris. 

Ritchie,  David  G.,  Natural  Rights,  London,  1895. 

Ritchie,  David  G.,  The  Social  Contract,  in  vii  vol.  of  Political  Science  Quarterly. 

Robinson,  Prof.  J.  H.,  The  Tennis  Court  Oath,  Political  Science  Quarterly,  vol.  x, 
September,  1895. 

Robinson,  Prof.  J.  H.,  The  French  Declaration  of  Rights,  Political  Science  Quar¬ 
terly,  vol.  xiv.  No.  4,  December,  1899. 

Robinson,  Prof.  J.  H.,  and  Grace  Read  Robinson,  Protests  of  the  Cour  des  Aides, 
April  10,  1775  ;  Translations  and  Reprints  from  Original  Sources  of  Euro¬ 
pean  History,  Department  of  History  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  1899. 

Robiquet,  Paul,  Le personnel  municipal  de  Paris,  pendant  la  revolution,  Paris,  1890. 

Roequain,  Felix,  L'esprit  revolutionnaire  avant  la  revolution,  Paris,  1878. 

Rousseau,  Jean  Jacques,  Contrat  social. 

Roux,  P.  C.,  Histoire  Parlementaire,  1789-1815,  P.  J.  B.;  Buchez  et  P.  C.  Roux, 
40  vols  ,  Paris,  1835. 

Saftu,  Vasilie,  Ein  Vergleich  der  Physichen  Erziehung  bei  Locke  U7id  Rousseau, 
Bucarest,  1889. 

Saint  Girons,  Droit  public  fran^ais,  Paris,  1881. 

Sayous,  Pierre  Andre,  Memoires  and  Correspondence  Illustrative  of  the  History  of 
the  French  Revolution,  1852. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  THE  CHIEF  WORKS  65 

Sloane,  William  M.,  The  French  Revolution  and  Religious  Reform,  Charles  Scrib¬ 
ner’s  Sons,  New  York,  1901. 

Sorel,  Albert,  L' Europe  et  la  revolution  franfaise,  4  vols.,  Paris,  1887,  1892. 
Stephens,  Henry  Morse,  The  French  Revolution,  New  York,  1886. 

Stephens,  W.  Walker,  Life  and  Writings  of  Turgot.  London,  1895. 

Texte,  Joseph,  fean  Jacques  Rousseau  et  les  Origines  du  Cosmopolitisme  litteraire, 
Paris,  1895. 

Tripier,  Louis.  Constitutions  qui  ont  regie  la  France  depuis  lySg,  Paris,  1879. 
Turgot,  Oeuvres,  Paris,  1808. 

Voltaire,  Oeuvres,  edited  by  M.  Beuchot. 

Vuy,  Jules,  Rousseau  et  Locke,  in  Bulletin  de  L'Institut  National  Genevois,  1883. 

Various  French  pamphlets  and  newspapers  found  in  the  Library  of  Columbia  Uni¬ 
versity,  New  York;  Astor  Library,  New  York;  the  Library  of  the  Pennsylvania 
Historical  Society,  Philadelphia,  Pa.,  and  the  Bo.ston  Public  Library. 


Date  Due 

Form  335— 40M— 6-40 

944.042  C743F 

Conaway _ 


449609 


The  first  French  republic... 


ISSUED  TO 


944.042 


C743F 


449609 


